get_board

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only and compresses the full order book to a specified depth (default 10) because the full board has hundreds to thousands of items. This goes beyond the bare minimum, though it omits details like authentication or rate limits.

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 extremely concise, with every sentence providing essential information. It front-loads the core purpose and return values, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key return fields (mid_price, spread, best_bid, best_ask, bids/asks) and explains the compression behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the tool description provides example product codes for product_code and explains that depth controls the number of levels for compression. This adds meaningful context that the schema alone does not provide.

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 the order book from bitFlyer, summarized to top depth levels, and marks it as read-only. It identifies the specific resource and action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the nature of the data.

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 implies usage for getting a summarized order book, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ticker or get_board_state. There are no when-not-to-use instructions.

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