get_orderbook

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 describes modes and parameters, omitting important traits such as whether the operation is read-only, if it makes network calls, or how it handles errors. The description does not add behavioral context beyond what the schema implies.

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 concise, consisting of only two sentences. The first sentence serves as a clear title, and the second provides a compact enumeration of modes. However, the mix of Japanese and English may reduce clarity for some agents.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, provide examples, or cover all parameters. The mode descriptions are helpful but insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, but the description adds substantial meaning for the 'mode' parameter by explaining each enum value. However, it fails to describe other parameters (pair, topN, ranges, bandsPct, priceZones), which remain undocumented. The partial compensation lifts the score from a baseline of 1 to 3.

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 it's an integrated tool for order book, depth, and spread information, and enumerates the different modes (summary, pressure, statistics, raw). It effectively communicates the tool's purpose, though a more concise verb+resource phrasing would improve clarity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or reference sibling tools. This is a significant omission for a tool with many siblings.

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