Get order book depth

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds 'Weight: 1' (a rate-limit cost) and 'snapshot' semantics, which are genuinely useful extras, but it omits return shape and any throttling 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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the weight hint placed last where it belongs. The first line merely restates the tool title, which is mildly redundant, but nothing is wasted beyond that.

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?

For a simple two-parameter market-read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and cost but not what the response contains (bids/asks structure, price levels vs. quantities). Adequate but leaves a real gap an agent would want filled.

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%, with symbols and limit/default/range fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get order book depth'), and the second line clarifies it returns a snapshot, distinguishing it from streaming or full-book siblings. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like pionex_market_get_book_tickers, so an agent must infer which market data call to use.

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, no mention of when to prefer get_depth over get_book_tickers, get_trades, or get_klines, and no prerequisites or symbol-format guidance. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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