xrp_get_order_book

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Get order book depth' without revealing what data is returned (e.g., bids/asks arrays), how the currency pair parameters affect results, or any edge cases. This is minimal and does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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, which is very concise, but it is also under-specified. It does not earn its place by providing critical information beyond restating the tool's name. The sentence is too short to be helpful given the tool's complexity (nested parameters, no output schema, no annotations).

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 tool has three parameters including nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only one sentence. It does not explain how to structure the currency pair objects, what 'depth' entails, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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 100%, with each parameter (limit, taker_gets, taker_pays) provided a brief description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate. The nested objects' structure is not elaborated in either the schema or the description.

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 retrieves order book depth for a currency pair, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('order book depth'). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool xrp_get_offers, which could be seen as overlapping, but the core purpose is clear.

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 such as xrp_get_offers or xrp_get_ledger_entry. The description lacks any context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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