get_orderbook_depth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does well by disclosing that the data is 'simulated' and that slippage is estimated for $10k trades. It also surfaces the pricing tier, which is useful behavioral context. It could add more about output shape or data freshness, but the output schema covers some of that.

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 no filler. It packs pricing, data type, and key metrics efficiently while remaining readable.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, simulation nature, and slippage context. It is slightly incomplete in that it omits token parameter semantics and any comparison to sibling tools, but the overall picture is sufficient for basic selection and invocation.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'token' parameter at all. The token's meaning is somewhat inferable from the tool name and context, but the description fails to explicitly connect the parameter to token symbol, address, or accepted format, leaving a gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetches') with a concrete resource ('simulated orderbook bid/ask depth') and adds differentiating details: liquidity imbalance, estimated slippage in bps, and $10k trade size. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_whale_flow and get_market_pulse.

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 orderbook depth and slippage analysis, and the 'Tier 2 ($0.05 USDC)' cost hints at when it applies, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools. No alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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