get_orderbook

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

The description discloses that it returns bids and asks, and that parameters like limit control depth. However, since no annotations are present, it does not fully cover behavioral aspects like rate limits or data freshness, leaving some gaps.

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 concise and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 description is complete for a simple orderbook tool, covering parameters and return structure. Given no output schema, it provides sufficient context. It lacks details on sorting or error scenarios, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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?

The description adds meaning to each parameter (e.g., symbol example, category options, limit range and default), which is valuable given 0% schema coverage. It could include more detail on the meaning of 'bids and asks', but it is adequate.

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 gets order book depth data and lists parameters. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like get_rpi_orderbook or get_spread_orderbook, which could cause confusion.

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, nor any prerequisites or context where this tool should be avoided.

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