orderbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no auth requirements, no rate limits, no data freshness/refresh semantics, and no statement of what is returned beyond 'depth + spread'. The 'spread (bps)' unit is the one genuinely useful behavioral detail.

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 core sentence is repeated verbatim before the example, so roughly half the text is dead weight. Front-loading is fine, but the duplication makes the definition look unedited rather than deliberately concise.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema market-data tool, the description should at least describe the shape of the response (bid/ask levels per side, spread in bps) and any limits. It stops at a one-line summary plus an example, leaving the agent to guess at return structure and freshness.

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 schema already documents symbol, exchange, and depth (default 10, max 50), which sets the baseline at 3. The embedded example URL restates the same parameter names without adding format or constraint detail beyond 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 names a concrete resource (top-of-book depth and spread in bps) and the supported venues (Binance, Bybit, Hyperliquid), so the agent knows what data comes back. However, it never distinguishes this from close siblings such as price, ohlcv, or liquidity_levels, and the sentence is literally duplicated, which wastes the strongest positioning slot.

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 guidance at all — nothing says to prefer this over price/ohlcv when the agent needs current bid/ask imbalance or spread rather than candles. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are named despite a large sibling set covering adjacent market data.

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