Order Book Whales (L4)

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/no-destruction, but the description adds substantial non-structured context: snapshot-derived, refreshed every 60s, latest-only with no history, as_of_height semantics, and the instruction to check age_s before citing. It also flags 'Pro tier' for access context.

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?

Front-loads the core question, then return fields, example, caveats, and tier in a logical order with essentially no filler. It is dense and somewhat run-on, but every clause carries useful information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates return fields, the snapshot/refresh model, the as_of_height/age_s staleness caveat, coin spelling, and tier. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the case-sensitivity rules and toon-format toggle. The description largely repeats the coin case-sensitivity guidance and only adds an example 'limit=10' usage, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific question it answers ('who is sitting on this book, and where?') and enumerates the returned fields (wallet, side, price, size, original size, distance from mid, tif, order type, rest time). It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling 'market_orderbook' as the L4 view rather than the aggregated L2 view.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use scenario ('is one wallet holding up the ETH bid?') with an example call and how to read the result. It names the alternative market_orderbook and the condition (L2 aggregate vs L4 individual orders) that selects between them, and routes to the trader tools for wallet joins.

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