get_orderbook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the output is an order book with bid/ask depth, but does not mention whether the order book is aggregated, how many levels are returned, whether it is a snapshot, or any data-source or latency characteristics. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the operation, the resource, and the key concept (bid/ask depth) efficiently.

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 is relatively simple and the schema covers parameter details, but the description does not explain how the optional board/engine/market fields affect the query, nor does it clarify return-value expectations since there is no output schema. It is minimally viable but leaves the agent to infer important context from parameter names alone.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters with examples and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, such as how board/engine/market interact with security. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get current order book (bid/ask depth) for a security.' It clearly identifies what the tool returns and its target input, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_market_data or get_recent_trades, which could also provide market-related 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 word 'current' implies this is for real-time snapshots rather than historical data, giving some contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternative tools for historical or trade-specific queries. Usage is implied rather than clearly stated.

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