get_order_book

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'open' status filtering but fails to disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, data freshness, auth requirements, or what happens when no filters are applied (full dataset vs error).

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 single-sentence structure is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. However, given the 0% schema coverage and lack of annotations, the brevity becomes a liability—additional sentences explaining return format or domain-specific terms ('limited redemption positions') would add value.

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 DeFi tool querying 'limited redemption positions,' the description lacks domain context and return value specification. With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter documentation, the description should explain what constitutes a redemption position and the expected response structure.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It successfully maps both parameters to their filtering purpose ('filtered by asset or owners') but doesn't clarify the data format for owners (addresses vs IDs) or explicitly mention that both are optional, though this is implied.

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 the tool retrieves 'open limited redemption positions' from the 'order book'—specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like get_redemption_orders or get_redemption_queue, which could confuse selection.

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 description mentions optional filtering ('optionally filtered by asset or owners') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_redemption_orders or get_redemption_queue, nor does it indicate prerequisites or optimal use cases.

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