get_ob_l1_top

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 only states the basic function and does not explain historical data support (via toTs), the effect of the limit parameter, or the output format. This lacks context that would help an agent understand the tool's behavior beyond the definition.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and every word 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't mention that it supports historical queries (toTs) or how limit works, nor does it clarify the relationship to sibling tools beyond the name. The lack of annotations and output schema means the description should have provided more context, but it only covers the surface-level function.

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 provides descriptions for all five parameters, covering 100% of the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, such as how fsym/tsym/e interact or the role of optional toTs and limit.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('L1 order book top-of-book') and clarifies it provides the best bid/ask. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_orderbooks and get_ob_l2_snapshot, which likely provide broader order book data.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_orderbooks or get_ob_l2_snapshot. The intended use is only implied by the name and the mention of 'top-of-book', but no direct comparison or exclusions are given.

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