prepare_depth_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the API call, the cumulative volume calculation, sorting order for bids/asks, band calculation, and JPY rounding—concrete behavioral specifics beyond a generic statement. Minor omission: no mention of rate limits or auth, but not expected for a data-prep tool.

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 somewhat long but well-organized: purpose, usage, and response format are clearly sectioned. Front-loads the key usage guidance. A few redundant phrases could be trimmed, but the structure aids quick comprehension.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by fully detailing the response structure including field names, ordering, band definition, and rounding behavior. An agent has all information needed to call the tool and parse its output correctly.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions (levels, bandPct), and the description adds implicit context (JPY rounding, band ratio). However, it does not elaborate on 'pair' beyond the default, and the schema already documents bounds and defaults. The description contributes minimal additional parameter meaning.

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 purpose: prep depth data for visualization, naming the underlying API (getDepth) and the output format. It distinguishes itself from render_depth_svg and get_orderbook via explicit use-case statements.

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?

Explicitly marks itself as the first-choice tool for depth chart drawing and directs to render_depth_svg when file saving (SVG/PNG) is needed. No ambiguity remains about when to select this tool.

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