book

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is REAL-TIME and served by the matching engine, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or any destructive behavior, which is acceptable for a read-only query tool but still leaves gaps.

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 two sentences long, efficiently front-loading the key outputs and adding a trustworthiness note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description covers the main outputs (best bid/ask, sizes, notional) and the depth range. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but for a simple order book snapshot, it is fairly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the depth_lo and depth_hi parameters as defining the range for asks notional, and implies token_id as the outcome token identifier. However, it does not explain default values or units, leaving some meaning only partially clarified.

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 clearly states it provides a real-time order book summary for one outcome token, including best bid/ask, sizes, and notional inside a depth range. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on order book depth and live matching engine data.

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 gives clear context that this endpoint is served by the matching engine and should be trusted over the trade tape for live decisions. It implicitly suggests when to use (for live decisions) and provides a comparison (trade tape), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among siblings.

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