get_depth

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) already indicate safe read behavior. The description adds 'real-time' which implies data freshness, slightly enhancing transparency. No contradictions.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. The strategy tag and example add value without redundancy. Could be slightly more structured, but efficient overall.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return values. However, it could mention depth levels or typical fields. The simple parameter and single sibling context make this adequate but not rich.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only states 'symbol: Security symbol,' adding minimal meaning. While the parameter is simple, the description does not specify format, exchange, or examples beyond a single snippet.

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 gets the order book (bid/ask depth) for a symbol. The verb 'Get' and resource 'order book' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like get_quote or get_candlesticks.

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 <strategy> tag advises 'Directly invoke for real-time bid/ask,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention context where other tools might be better, so it's not a full 5.

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