chainvectorOrderbookWalls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes that the data is 'currently resting in the book' and that walls persist 'until pulled', which hints at the transient nature of the data. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, does not mention any required permissions, or describe error scenarios.

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 description is two concise sentences. The first sentence defines the output, the second provides trading context, and there is no wasted verbiage.

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?

With no output schema, the description partly compensates by specifying that results include age and distance from mid, and it explains the conceptual significance of walls. It lacks details on output structure, sorting, or whether bid/ask sides are included, but given the tool's narrow scope it is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description uses the 'min_usd' parameter ('>= min_usd') but adds no meaning beyond the schema's own description of the threshold and defaults. Other parameters like symbol, window, and exchange are not elaborated in the description.

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 identifies the tool as providing ChainVector resting liquidity walls—unusually large limit orders currently in the book, including age and distance from mid. This sets it apart from sibling tools like chainvectorOrderbookImbalance or BinanceDepth. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'list', making the purpose slightly indirect.

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 explains that walls serve as magnets/support and are natural take-profit and stop anchor levels, giving a clear use case. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternative tools for other use cases, so it stops short of full guidance.

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