get_crypto_latest_orderbook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes that the response includes the full order book depth and 'can be large,' which warns the agent about payload size. It also instructs to always set loc to 'us,' which is a directive beyond the schema's enum description. This adds meaningful context without contradicting any structured data. It does not mention side effects, but as a read operation that is acceptable. Overall, it discloses key behavioral traits beyond what the schema provides.

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 two sentences long with no redundant words. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the critical usage note and size warning follow efficiently. Every sentence contributes information that is not already in the schema, so it 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?

Given the tool has only two parameters (both required) and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential points: what it returns, the crucial loc instruction, and a warning about response size. There is nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly that is missing. The output schema handles return value details, so the description need not elaborate further.

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 input schema already has complete descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by advising 'always set loc to "us"'—this is not in the schema and tells the agent the correct value to use in practice. For symbols, the description reaffirms 'one or more crypto symbols' but the schema already explains the comma-separated list format. The extra loc guidance pushes this above baseline.

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 ('Returns the latest orderbook'), a resource ('orderbook'), and scope ('for one or more crypto symbols'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_crypto_latest_quote or get_crypto_snapshot, which return different data. The intent is unambiguous and an agent can immediately know what data this tool provides.

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 a concrete usage instruction: 'The loc parameter is required — always set loc to "us".' This is practical guidance for calling the tool correctly. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_crypto_latest_quote or get_crypto_snapshot), nor does it state exclusions or conditions for selection. The guidance is useful but not about tool selection, so it only partially satisfies the dimension.

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