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 states the output structure (bids and asks arrays) but does not mention that this is a snapshot (vs. real-time subscription), whether the depth parameter affects completeness, how results are ordered, or any error conditions. The term 'complete' conflicts with the depth parameter, which further undermines transparency.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and output. It is concise and contains no filler. However, the word 'complete' is potentially misleading given the depth parameter, and the description could be slightly more precise without added length.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidance to differentiate from related subscription and market detail tools, does not explain the snapshot nature, and does not clarify the depth parameter's impact on the returned data. An agent could easily misuse this tool without additional context.

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?

The input schema describes both parameters with sufficient detail (token_id as 'Token ID', depth as 'Number of price levels per side (default 20)'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate; no extra value is contributed.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('complete order book') with expected output ('bids and asks arrays'). It is unambiguous about what the tool returns, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like subscribe_orderbook_updates or get_market_details. The word 'complete' is slightly misleading given the depth parameter, but the core purpose is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as subscribe_orderbook_updates for streaming updates or get_market_details for a broader market view. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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