get_order_book

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and world-access profile is covered without the description. The description adds a useful domain-specific note ('A bond's prices are in percent of its nominal, not in money'), which is genuine behavioral context. However, it does not cover return structure, pagination, or rate limits. With annotations handling the core behavioral flags, this is adequate at 3.

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 with purpose, followed by a key domain note and a clean parameter block. Every sentence adds information and there is 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?

For a read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, both parameter meanings, and a domain-specific pricing caveat. Smaller gaps remain, such as the response shape and whether the order book is live or snapshot, but the essential information is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents both parameters, including accepted identifier formats (ticker, FIGI, ISIN, UID) and a valid depth range (1-50) with its default. The only gap is the absence of a format example for instrument_id.

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 ('Get order book (market depth) for an instrument') and enumerates the returned components (bids, asks, last price, spread). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_last_prices or get_candles.

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 tool's domain (market depth) implies its usage context, but the description contains no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. No routing conditions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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