Get Polymarket order book

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

The description discloses ordering (bids highest-first, asks lowest-first) and truncation to depth levels, which is helpful. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on auth requirements, data freshness (e.g., how 'live' it is), or any side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences that are efficient and front-loaded. Every clause adds value: the verb 'get', the resource 'order book for one token', computed fields, ordering, and truncation. No redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description hints at return structure (best bid, ask, midpoint, spread, and arrays of bids/asks in order). This is fairly complete for a simple order book tool, though a brief note on the format could elevate it further.

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 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds only the context that depth truncates levels, which is already implied by the schema description. No substantial new meaning is added beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states it retrieves live bids/asks for a single outcome token with computed values. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like get_market (market details) or get_price_history (historical prices), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage for obtaining order book data for a token and specifies truncation behavior. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the context from sibling names provides enough differentiation.

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