crypto_get_level2_book

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, what the response contains (e.g., bids/asks, depth levels), or any limitations such as symbol format or rate limits. The description only names the action without revealing any behavioral traits.

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, front-loaded with the action and object. It contains no filler or redundant words, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what a level 2 order book includes and how the tool fits into a workflow. It does neither, leaving the agent without information about the return structure (bids/asks) or when to use this over sibling tools. The description is minimally adequate but incomplete for a tool of this nature.

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 provides zero description for the 'symbol' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds the meaning that the symbol is a 'crypto pair', which gives some domain context. However, it does not specify expected formatting (e.g., 'BTCUSD' vs 'BTC-USD') or clarify that the symbol directly maps to the pair, leaving partial ambiguity.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('level 2 order book') for a defined domain ('crypto pair'). This is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on indicators, prices, trades, or snapshots, and there is no competing order-book tool.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool, what scenarios call for it, or how it compares to alternatives like crypto_get_snapshot or crypto_get_trades. It simply restates the function, offering no usage context or exclusions.

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