get_depth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that levels are [price, size] strings returned verbatim from the exchange, and specifies the limit range. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the nature of a 'get' operation and absence of side effects are strongly implied.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the limit detail, then the output format. No unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what is returned (bids/asks), the limit constraint, and the exact format of each level. No missing information that would cause an incorrect call.

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 zero parameter coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds the limit range (1-1000) beyond the schema's default, which is valuable. For 'symbol', the description does not need extra detail as the name and type are self-explanatory.

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 returns the order book (bids and asks) for a symbol, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like get_book_ticker and get_price by specifying the depth levels, so an agent can select it appropriately.

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 gives the limit range and default but does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternative tools. It implies usage for order book depth, but lacks explicit exclusions or references to siblings that serve similar purposes (e.g., get_book_ticker).

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