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 of behavioral disclosure. The 'Get' verb and 'live' qualifier together signal a read-only, real-time snapshot operation. It doesn't mention aggregation depth, pagination limits, or invalid-token behavior, but for a simple one-parameter read this conveys the core behavior adequately.

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 12-word sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every element — 'live', 'bids/asks', 'CLOB token id' — earns its place, with zero filler or redundancy.

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 tool (one required parameter, no nested objects, plus an output schema that covers return values), the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is the lack of an explicit differentiation from the sibling kalshi_get_orderbook, though the 'CLOB' qualifier partially handles this. Minor depth/format details aside, an agent has enough to call 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 description coverage is 0% and the schema only provides the title 'Token Id', so the description must compensate. It adds the key concept that token_id is a 'CLOB' token identifier, which gives meaningful context beyond the schema. However, it omits any format guidance (e.g., numeric string, hex), leaving part of the burden unmet given the 0% coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('live orderbook (bids/asks)'), and scope ('for a CLOB token id'), which fully answers what the tool does. The 'live' qualifier and 'CLOB' framing clearly distinguish it from the sibling price_history and kalshi_get_orderbook, so an agent can tell them apart from the description 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?

The 'CLOB token id' phrasing implies a use context (central-limit-order-book prediction-market tokens) and the 'live' qualifier suggests a real-time snapshot rather than history. However, it never explicitly names an alternative such as kalshi_get_orderbook or states when-not-to-use this tool, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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