get_order_book

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds behavioral context by explaining the pressure index range (-1 to +1) and spread percentage, which tells the agent what to expect in the output. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like data freshness, depth levels, or error behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 two focused sentences, front-loaded with the core function and enriched with metric definitions. There is no redundant wording or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return content and key metrics. It lacks details about output structure or depth levels, but for the agent's purposes, it provides sufficient context to select and interpret the tool.

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 schema already documents the 'symbol' parameter with an example (JKH.N0000), and the description does not add additional parameter semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no extra parameter-specific value.

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 returns market depth (bids vs asks) and specifies unique alpha metrics (pressure index, spread percentage) that distinguish it from sibling market data tools like get_stock_snapshot or get_market_summary. The verb 'Get' plus resource 'market depth' is specific and unambiguous.

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 the tool is for analyzing buy/sell pressure and liquidity, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidance. The mention of alpha metrics indicates a trading-analysis use case.

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