Spot order book depth: walls and 2% depth from every spot venue on the coverage page

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, disclosing binning granularity (0.1% buckets within 20% of mid), USD notional, venue splitting, 2% depth, book reach, per-venue handling, and the in_aggregate=false/held_out treatment of uncorroborated books. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 dense but purposeful; every sentence carries operational detail. It is front-loaded with usage triggers before output specifics. It is slightly long and packed into a few complex sentences, but not wasteful.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly covers scope, inputs, aggregation behavior, coin universe, and data-quality caveats. It does not describe the exact response structure or field names, but the returned concepts are clear enough for invocation decisions.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds contextual value by linking hours to summed 5-minute history and listing accepted coins, but it mostly reinforces rather than expands on the schema.

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 opens with concrete user intents ('where the bid or ask walls are', 'how deep the spot order book is') and names the resource: spot order books from every venue on the coverage page. It clearly distinguishes this from generic market data tools by specifying the unique wall/depth/heatmap scope.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions ('Call this when the user asks...') and lists representative queries. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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