book_imbalance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it: no data source, staleness, latency, market scoping, or whether the band is user-configurable. The only real disclosure is the formula itself, which is analytical rather than operational.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity is achieved by omitting necessary context rather than by tight writing.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and an open input schema mean the description must supply the missing context, and it does not. It never states what is returned, which book/market is used, or how the band is determined, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently.

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?

Parameter count is zero, which normally gives a baseline of 4. But the schema sets additionalProperties=true with no documented properties, so the tool implicitly accepts inputs (e.g. symbol or band width) that neither the schema nor the description explains. The description mentions 'a public-book band' without saying how it is specified.

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 precise computation (bid depth / ask depth within a public-book band), so an agent can infer it returns an imbalance ratio. However it never says what the tool actually delivers (a number? a time series?) or what scope/market it applies to, unlike siblings such as order_book which are self-evident. Precise metric, vague deliverable.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives like order_book or markets for raw depth data. The reader must infer that this is a derived metric rather than a substitute for pulling the book itself.

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