pmus_get_order_book

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds useful output-ordering context ('best first') and field composition, but it does not describe any auth/permission or rate-limit traits, nor does it clarify the vague 'market stats' beyond the output schema.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It delivers the core purpose and output composition in under 20 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 read-only two-parameter tool with a full output schema and annotations, the description is largely complete. It leaves some room by not saying when to prefer this over pmus_get_bbo, but the structured signals carry the rest.

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 100% and the schema already documents slug and depth, including default, min, max, and per-side meaning. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond this, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the resource ('order book') and the payload details (bids/offers, per-level price/quantity, cumulative size, market stats), so an agent can tell what it returns. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like pmus_get_bbo, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The only signal is the content description, which implies full order book depth versus BBO or history, but leaves the selection decision to inference.

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