get_order_book

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does clarify that only 'open' positions are returned and that filtering is optional, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how filters combine, what the response shape is, or whether unfiltered calls return all positions.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It conveys the core purpose and optional filters efficiently. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though it could have added a bit more behavioral context without becoming bloated.

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 low-complexity read tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the basic purpose and filter dimensions. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not fully round out the call contract: the return type, read-only guarantee, and filter behavior are missing, so an agent has to infer too much.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by mapping 'asset' to the iAsset filter and 'owners' to the owners filter, and by indicating both are optional. However, it does not explain owner address format, matching semantics, or how the two filters interact, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a concrete resource: open ROB (redemption order book) positions. It also clarifies the optional filtering dimensions (iAsset or owners). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools like get_redemption_orders or get_redemption_queue, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving open redemption order book positions but provides no guidance on when to use it versus the many related sibling tools such as get_redemption_orders, get_redemption_queue, or open_rob. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or context cues beyond the basic purpose.

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