Strata order book

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds behavioral details such as 'executable' order book and the aggregation of orders into one size per price level. This goes beyond the annotations, providing useful context about what the tool returns and implies.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every sentence adds value: the first states what is read, the second defines top of book. No wasted words.

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 annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently explains the output (bids/asks, one size per level, top of book) without needing extensive detail. It lacks an explicit return format but that is not critical given the simplicity and the presence of annotations.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it calls the market ID 'opaque', but the schema already defines a pattern. The depth parameter is not mentioned in the description, though the schema provides its description. With 50% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for the marketId lacking an explicit description, but it is adequate given the pattern and required nature.

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 reads the executable order book for a specific market ID, specifying bids and asks with one size per price level and explaining top-of-book. It is distinct from sibling tools like strata_bbo, which likely provides only the best bid/ask, by describing a full order book.

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 usage for obtaining full order book depth but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like strata_bbo or strata_trades. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, though the context suggests it is for depth data as opposed to top-of-book.

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