get_order_book

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool returns live asks and bids, which is useful behavioral context, but does not disclose read-only guarantees, rate limits, pagination, or any side effects. The 'Get' verb implies a safe read, but this is not explicit.

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, clear sentence that wastes no words. It answers what the tool does and its main output content immediately, and the parenthetical 'asks and bids' is a high-value clarification.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-value details are already covered. However, the description omits enough context for correct invocation: no guidance on how to identify outcomes, what slug_or_id refers to, or when to prefer this over get_market. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 adds almost no parameter-level meaning. It mentions 'market outcome' but does not explain the required slug_or_id parameter, its format, or how outcome interacts with it. The burden was on the description to compensate for an empty schema, and it failed to do so.

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 ('Get'), names a clear resource ('live order book'), and scopes it to a 'market outcome' while clarifying the content ('asks and bids'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market and watch_prices, which serve different data purposes.

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 a clear use case—fetching live bid/ask data for a specific outcome—but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_market, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It relies on the reader to infer when it should be used.

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