depth_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly discloses side effects (none, read-only) and a prerequisite limitation (DOM panel must be open). It does not describe error behavior or return format, but for a simple read-only extraction tool this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

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 front-loaded and well structured with WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, and LIMITATIONS labels. It is concise and every sentence earns its place.

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 parameterless, annotation-free read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, side effects, and a key limitation. It could optionally describe the return shape (e.g., bid/ask level structure), but it is largely complete for tool selection.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the empty schema provides all necessary structure.

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 states a specific verb and resource: extract order book / DOM bid/ask levels from the DOM panel. This is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as quote_get, data_get_trades, or market_get_smart_volume.

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?

It provides an explicit WHEN TO USE section: analyzing order book liquidity or bid-ask imbalance. It also gives a prerequisite limitation (DOM panel must be open), but it does not name alternative tools or say when not to use this one.

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