get_orderbook

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read, but the description does not state auth requirements, rate limits, whether data is real-time or snapshot, or how the limit behaves across categories.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single four-word sentence is front-loaded and technically concise, but it is severely under-specified for a tool with two required parameters and no annotations. Conciseness is achieved through omission rather than precision.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain orderbook depth, how limit is interpreted across spot/linear/inverse/option, or what the return contains.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33%; only limit has a schema description, while symbol and category are undocumented. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('orderbook data'), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling market-data tools like get_tickers or get_kline, leaving the agent to infer that this returns orderbook depth rather than trades, tickers, or account data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The description does not say when to prefer this over get_tickers or get_kline, nor what category values mean for usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.