Order Book

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: depth is snapped to the nearest priced tier, weight costs are listed, and the venue-dependent endpoint behavior is disclosed. No contradictions exist.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds useful information: endpoint mapping, depth snapping/weights, and a concrete example. It avoids fluff while remaining technically specific.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description provides enough context for correct invocation: which venue to use, how depth is handled, and a call example. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and call this tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains venue by mapping futures/spot to endpoints, depth by snapping/weight tiers, and symbol through the example. It does not exhaustively define possible venue values, but it conveys the essential meaning of all three parameters.

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 states a specific action and resource: retrieving an aggregated order book, and identifies the exact endpoints for futures and spot. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like klines or trades by naming the depth/order-book use case.

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 provides clear context about venue-specific endpoints and an example call, so when an order book is needed this tool is implied. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as market_overview or trades, nor does it give exclusion criteria.

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