get_order_book

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

With no annotations provided, the description explains it is live, L2-level, and includes spread—critical behavioral details. However, it does not disclose potential limitations such as error handling or rate limits, so it is not fully transparent.

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 focused sentences with the main function front-loaded and no redundant text. Examples are integrated efficiently, making the description easy to parse.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly enumerates the return content (top bids/asks with sizes and spread) and supported market types. For a tool of this simplicity, this is sufficient and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% since both coin and depth have descriptive text and examples. The description's coin example duplicates the schema's example, adding no extra meaning. Therefore baseline 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?

The description clearly states it provides a live L2 order book with top bids/asks, sizes, and spread. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that cover mids, market metadata, funding, or user state, making the tool's specific purpose unmistakable.

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?

It gives clear usage context by specifying it works for perps and spot pairs with concrete examples, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_all_mids or get_market. Thus it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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