get_qx_orderbook

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 reveals a key dependency (must call get_token_list first) and a correctness constraint (never fabricate an issuer address). It also specifies the return content (ask/bid orders with price and quantity). It does not mention rate limits or response structure, but the important prerequisite behavior is well disclosed.

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 concise and well structured. The main purpose is stated in one sentence, followed by an 'IMPORTANT' block that highlights the critical prerequisite. No wasted words or repetition of schema details.

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 plausible complexity (orderbook sides, pagination) and no output schema. The description explains the return type (ask/bid orders with price and quantity) and gives essential workflow context. It does not detail the exact response schema or pagination behavior, but the core usage and prerequisites are adequately covered for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the issuer parameter by emphasizing that the exact address must come from get_token_list, and that guessing is prohibited. This goes beyond schema descriptions and helps agents use the parameter correctly.

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: 'Query the QX decentralized exchange orderbook for a Qubic token' and specifies the output: 'Returns current ask (sell) and bid (buy) orders with price and quantity.' It uses a specific verb ('Query'), names the resource (QX DEX orderbook), and differentiates itself from siblings like get_token_price and get_token_list.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'You MUST call get_token_list first to find the exact issuer address. NEVER guess or fabricate an issuer address.' This establishes a clear prerequisite workflow and error handling ('tell the user it was not found and ask them to provide the issuer address'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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