get_asset_liquidity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns bid/ask at specific basis points from mid, which is partially transparent. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (presumed), any rate limits, error handling for missing assets, or the exact output structure. This leaves some behavioral aspects unclear, justifying a 3.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the tool's primary function, and the second adds importance. Every word is purposeful; there is no redundancy or extraneous information. It is well front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has a simple input schema (3 parameters, 1 required) and no output schema. The description provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool returns (bid/ask depth at specific price levels). While the exact output structure is not detailed, the description compensates sufficiently for a low-complexity tool. A higher score would require explicit output details.

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 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter adequately. The description adds overall context (purpose of depth data) but does not clarify parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly elevate parameter understanding.

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 the tool's function: 'Get order book depth data for an asset — bid/ask USD at 50/100/200bp from mid.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('order book depth'), and scope ('bid/ask at specific price levels'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_market_snapshot' which likely provides broader market data. The description is precise and non-tautological.

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 usage context: 'Critical for assessing real-world execution costs.' This implies the tool should be used when evaluating trade execution costs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools. While the guidance is clear and relevant, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons, so a 4 is appropriate.

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