get_order_book

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full explanatory burden. It usefully discloses the 5-level depth and the buy/sell ordering queue, but it does not describe the response shape, ordering of levels, or any session/authentication requirements. The read-only nature is only weakly implied by the get verb.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key detail, 5-level depth, leads directly, and the identifier mechanism follows.

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 read-only lookup the description provides the essential scope and lookup key, but no output schema or return description exists. An agent is left to infer the exact JSON shape and whether any market or session conditions apply, so the context is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage for the single insCode parameter is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only restates that the order book is looked up by insCode, without explaining where this identifier comes from, its format, or how it differs from a symbol/ticker. This is barely more than the property name in the schema.

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 identifies the resource as a 5-level order book with buy/sell sides and the lookup key as insCode. It does not, however, contrast itself with sibling tools such as get_quote or get_market_watch, so differentiation is left to the resource name.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_quote, get_price_history, or get_market_watch. The only implied context is that a caller needs an insCode identifier; no alternative or exclusion is mentioned.

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