pro_get_order_book

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it is marked [UBLIC], returns a single object, and describes the market-depth data returned.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is fairly compact. There is slight redundancy between 'current buy and sell orders' and the later restatement as 'bids and asks,' but it remains efficient and readable.

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 one-parameter public read-only tool, the description covers purpose, required input, output shape, and public access. There is no output schema, so the explicit mention of a single object containing bids/asks helps complete the picture. It could improve by naming alternatives, but this is minor for such a simple tool.

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 coverage is 100% and already documents the pair format with examples. The description's mention of requiring a trading pair and showing BTC-SD repeats schema information without adding substantive new semantics, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('rder book (market depth)') and explicitly lists what is returned: bids and asks with prices and amounts. No sibling tool name overlaps this resource, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'seful for analyzing market liquidity and determining optimal order prices.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it misses the top-tier threshold.

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