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. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as being a read-only operation, any rate limits, or what level of orderbook detail is returned. The description is too sparse.

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 very concise with one sentence and an Args line, front-loading the main action. It is efficient, though it could benefit from a bit more structure or detail.

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 that there is an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what the orderbook output contains (e.g., bids/asks levels). For a standard concept it might be enough, but room for improvement.

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?

The description adds a concrete example ('BTC_USDT') for the market parameter, which adds value beyond the schema's description. However, it does not explain the nested structure or other nuances.

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 orderbook' for a specific market, using a direct verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_recent_trades' and 'get_ticker' by specifying 'orderbook'.

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 implies usage when needing orderbook data, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., 'bookticker_subscribe' for real-time updates). No exclusions are provided.

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