depth_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is a read ('Get') and that data comes from the chart, but it does not disclose whether a chart must be open, whether the data is real-time or snapshot-based, or whether the tool is unsupported for certain market types. This is minimal behavioral information for a no-annotation tool.

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, direct sentence with the action and object front-loaded. It contains no filler and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

For a zero-parameter getter, naming the resource and source covers basic selection and invocation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not clarify the return shape, whether the active chart symbol is used implicitly, or if order book data is available for all symbol types. It is adequate but leaves meaningful operational details to inference.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation gap for the description to fill. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies, and no further parameter-level detail is needed.

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 names a specific verb and resource: getting order book/DOM data, and it notes the data source is the chart. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling retrieval tools like quote_get or data_get_ohlcv, whose resources are explicitly different. The parenthetical '(Depth of Market)' also removes ambiguity about the acronym DOM.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as quote_get, data_get_trades, or data_get_ohlcv, and no exclusion conditions are stated. The phrase 'from the chart' implies a dependency on the active chart but does not say it explicitly or mention prerequisites.

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