Order book

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it is a point-in-time snapshot (not a stream), prices are aggregated by level, and results are ordered best-first, which matters for interpretation with no output schema present.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler; the resource and its scope are front-loaded and the return shape follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only market-data tool with full schema coverage and annotation-declared safety, the description supplies the one thing structured fields lack: the shape and ordering of the returned book. Minor gaps remain around error behavior for unknown symbols, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, including the depth range/default and the BASE/QUOTE pattern with an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about depth semantics (e.g., that depth truncates rather than paginates) or symbol case handling, so it stays at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (order-book snapshot for one market) and precisely characterizes the payload: aggregated by price, bids and asks as [price, quantity] pairs, best first. This clearly separates it from get_recent_trades and get_candles, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_ticker or get_candles for price views. The only usage signal is the implicit 'for one market', which the required symbol parameter already conveys.

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