book_ingest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Store' implies a write/persistence operation, but the description says nothing about idempotency, overwrite behavior, validation failures, permissions, rate limits, or what is returned.

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 a single short sentence, which is efficient, but it leads with the cryptic internal marker 'T1 (core-local)' that does not help an agent. The remaining sentence is front-loaded with the core action, though it is too terse for the tool's complexity.

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?

This is a 9-parameter write/ingest tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description names the core action but omits critical context about persistence semantics, required parameter meaning, validation, and expected outcomes, leaving the definition substantially incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters. The description only hints that levels relate to bids/asks and that outcome matters for event contracts; it does not explain instrument_id, venue, as_of, tick, book_type, native_ref, required vs optional fields, or expected formats.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Store a canonical Book snapshot built from normalized levels' for an ingested instrument, with a special case for event contracts. It is clearer than a tautology, but it does not differentiate the tool from siblings such as instrument_ingest or quote_get, and the 'T1 (core-local)' prefix is internal jargon.

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 only usage context is implicit in 'for an ingested instrument' and '(per outcome for event contracts)' - there is no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites beyond the vague reference to an ingested instrument.

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