Manifest Get Orderbook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond these annotations, so it meets the baseline for transparency without contradicting annotations.

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 brief with two sentences. The first sentence is direct and useful. The second sentence adds SAP context but is tangentially related to the tool's usage, slightly diluting focus. Still, it is efficient overall.

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-only tool with a full output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. The existence of an output schema obviates the need to describe return values. All essential information (purpose, key parameter) is conveyed.

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 both 'marketId' and 'depth' having basic descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any further meaning (e.g., depth units or interpretation), so it does not exceed the baseline value provided by the schema.

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 'Get the current orderbook for a Manifest market,' providing a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current orderbook') with a distinct scope ('Manifest market'). This effectively differentiates it from sibling manifest tools like manifest_placeLimitOrder, manifest_cancelOrder, and manifest_createMarket.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The SAP context advice about registration is unrelated to usage decisions. No explicit when/to use, when-not-to-use, or comparisons with siblings like openbook_getOrderbook or jupiter_getQuote are provided.

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