get_rpi_orderbook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states 'Get' indicating a read-only operation, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, data latency, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate for a simple fetch but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise, with the core purpose in the first line followed by a brief parameter list. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words. The structure front-loads the purpose and separates parameter details clearly.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., bids/asks structure). For an orderbook tool, the return is somewhat implied, but the lack of explicit details leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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 input schema has 0% coverage, but the description adds meaningful parameter semantics: 'symbol: Symbol, e.g., BTCUSDT', 'limit: Depth limit: 1-50', 'category: Product type: spot, linear, inverse (optional)'. This provides examples and constraints beyond the schema's bare titles and types.

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 starts with 'Get RPI (Retail Price Improvement) orderbook' which clearly identifies the specific resource and action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_orderbook' and 'get_spread_orderbook' that retrieve different orderbook types.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_orderbook). The mention of 'RPI orderbook' implies a specific use case, but without context on RPI's purpose or when it's applicable, an agent may struggle to select the correct tool.

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