orderbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'full order-book depth ladder.' It does not mention whether levels are aggregated, if there is a limit to depth, ordering (best bid/ask first), or any pagination. This is a minimal disclosure.

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 concise sentence with no fluff. It communicates the core function efficiently, and every word contributes meaning. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

The tool has only one required parameter and no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it does not elaborate on what the order-book ladder contains (e.g., bid/ask levels, quantities, aggregation). The phrase 'depth ladder' implies levels, but it is still minimal. It is adequate but could benefit from a bit more context.

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 coverage is 100% because the only parameter 'symbol' has a description 'IDX ticker.' The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema. Per the rubric, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3, and the description does not compensate with extra details.

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 states the resource clearly: 'Full order-book depth ladder for a symbol.' While no explicit verb is given, the intent to provide depth levels is distinct from sibling tools like 'quote' or 'intraday_prices.' It could be improved with an action verb, but it is specific enough to differentiate.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it is, with no context about comparing to 'quote' or 'intraday_prices.' The agent must infer usage from the name and sibling tools.

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