get_market_depth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the returned payload shape (top-5 levels with price, quantity, and totals), which is valuable since there is no output schema. It says nothing about data freshness, exchange hours, rate limits, or permissions, so behavioral coverage is partial.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource (market depth), then its content, then its scope. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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 low-complexity single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (top-5 bid/ask levels with totals). It omits the scripcode format and any freshness/authorization context, which are the remaining gaps an agent would need.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. Saying 'for one BSE scrip' confirms the parameter identifies a single scrip but does not specify the expected format (numeric scrip code vs. symbol), leaving a real gap.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: top-5 bids and asks with price/quantity/totals for one BSE scrip. This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_quote, get_peers, or get_financials, though it never names the distinction explicitly. An agent can identify the resource, just not formally rule out alternatives from the text alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The description does not say when market depth is preferred over get_quote (e.g. when the order book rather than the last traded price is needed). Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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