Spot order book depth: walls and 2% depth across Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, Bybit, OKX

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: USD-notional bucketing, 5% depth window, walls, venue split, 2% depth, book reach, and optional 5-minute history. It does not need to repeat the annotation hints, and it does not contradict them.

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 efficient: one sentence of triggering use cases, one sentence of return composition, and a compact coin list at the end. There is no filler or restating of what the schema already says.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does: bucket granularity, depth window, venue-level breakdown, walls, 2% depth, book reach, and optional history. It also lists valid coins and leaves only minor operational details like pagination or rate limits, which are low-stakes for a read-only 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating the supported coins (BTC, ETH, SOL, ...) and linking hours to the optional summed 5-minute history, which helps the agent form valid parameters without an enum list.

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 explicit trigger queries ('where the bid or ask walls are', 'how deep the spot order book is') and then states the resource: five venues' spot order books binned into 0.1% buckets within 5% of mid. This unambiguously separates it from the broader market data siblings like get_liquidations or get_slippage.

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 a clear when-to-use list ('Call this when the user asks...') with several concrete question forms. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the full when/when-not guidance.

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