get_order_book

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the resource (order book) and valid limit values, but does not mention safety (read-only nature), response format, aggregation behavior, or any other nuances. This is a minimal description that adds little beyond what the tool name suggests.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource (order book) and then provides the limit options. Every word earns its place; it is concise and efficient with no redundant information.

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 simple read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It clearly states the purpose and limit values, but lacks usage guidance and behavioral details. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps such as when to use it and what the response looks like.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for the 'limit' parameter by listing valid values (5,10,20,50,100,500,1000), which is not in the schema. However, it does not explain the 'symbol' parameter beyond the obvious property name, and there are no descriptions for either parameter in the schema itself. Overall, the description partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's purpose: it retrieves the order book (bids/asks) for a given symbol. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_price and get_klines, which serve different data retrieval purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. While the tool name and description imply it is for order book data, there is no explicit context for when an agent should choose this over siblings.

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