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 behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, latency, or what the output format looks like (e.g., bids/asks structure). For a financial data tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's function in a compact form, making it 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?

Given the complexity of financial data retrieval, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or output structure, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in a trading context.

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%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (exchange, limit, symbol). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'limit' affects order book depth or format examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('market order book for a trading pair'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get-ticker' or 'get-trades' that also retrieve market data, missing explicit differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-ticker' (for price) and 'get-trades' (for recent trades), there's no indication of when order book data is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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