Fetch real-time bid and ask levels for a CLOB token ID to assess market depth and liquidity on prediction markets.
Get the live orderbook (bids/asks) for a CLOB token id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.18.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "get_orderbookOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to cover safety. It adds that the data is 'live' and includes bids/asks, which gives some behavioral context about the response. However, it doesn't disclose any rate limits, pagination, or data staleness behavior, so it's only moderate.
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 one sentence, front-loads the verb and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. It is an excellent example of conciseness.
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 (1 param, no output schema) and that annotations cover safety, the description is generally adequate. But it lacks guidance on the expected return structure beyond 'bids/asks' and fails to mention any limitations or caveats of live data. It also doesn't help disambiguate from sibling orderbook tools, so there are clear gaps.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the token_id parameter. It adds that the parameter is a 'CLOB token id', clarifying its domain. However, it doesn't explain the format, where to find the id, or how it relates to other tool parameters. This is minimal compensation, so a 2 is appropriate.
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 gets the live orderbook for a CLOB token id, specifying the resource (orderbook) and the key qualifier (live, CLOB token id). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like kalshi_get_orderbook or watch_book, so it scores a 4 rather than 5.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as kalshi_get_orderbook or price_history. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative suggestions. The only implied usage is when an orderbook is needed, but that is not explicit enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.