nt_market_depth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the key requirement of an L2 subscription, which signals a potential error condition if absent. However, it does not describe return format, data structure, or any other behavioral traits beyond the subscription prerequisite.

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 a single, focused sentence that delivers the core purpose and a critical prerequisite without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential function and a key requirement. However, it lacks information about the return structure, error conditions (e.g., without subscription), and explicit parameter mapping, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 one parameter (symbol) with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'for an instrument' but does not explicitly map 'symbol' to the instrument identifier or provide value formats/examples. This leaves the parameter semantics largely undefined beyond the schema's basic type requirement.

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 retrieves the Level 2 order book for an instrument, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Level 2 order book'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nt_quote or nt_historical_bars, which serve different data retrieval purposes.

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 when market depth data is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides a prerequisite (L2 subscription), which offers some usage context, but no guidance on choosing between related quote/depth tools.

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