Get order book

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden alone. It does disclose the return payload (bid, ask, spread, level depth), which is meaningful value given there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about read-only semantics, latency/streaming, ordering, or rate limits, leaving behavioral traits thin for a wholly un-annotated tool.

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 that names the primary artifact first and then enumerates contents. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

Because there is no output schema, describing the returned fields is exactly the right compensation and it is done competently. The remaining gap is the absence of any cue about read-only nature or data freshness for a two-parameter market-data call, which keeps it short of a 5.

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%: 'symbol' is documented as a perp symbol with examples and 'depth' carries its own description plus a default of 5. The phrase 'nearest levels on each side' loosely corroborates the depth parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (order book for a symbol) and enumerates the content: best bid, best ask, spread, nearest levels per side. This clearly distinguishes it from position, limits, and candle getters by subject matter. It stops short of naming a sibling for contrast, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 guidance on when to call this versus get_candles or get_limits, and no stated preconditions. Usage is only inferable from the word 'book' and the required symbol parameter. No exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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