Retrieve the public orderbook for a specific outcome side in perp-cli perpetual futures markets using outcome ID and side index. No API key required.
Get the orderbook for one outcome side. Public read — no API key needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| side | Yes | Side index within the outcome (0 = first sideSpecs entry like 'Yes', 1 = second like 'No') | |
| outcome | Yes | Outcome id from outcomeMeta (e.g., 1 for the BTC binary daily) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.14.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a useful auth detail ('Public read — no API key needed') and implies a read-only nature, but it omits other relevant traits such as return format, pagination, rate limits, or error behavior.
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 short sentences, front-loading the core action and then adding a key constraint. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy 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?
For a simple read operation with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and auth requirement. However, given the presence of a similar sibling tool (get_orderbook), it lacks the usage guidance and behavioral detail that would make it fully self-sufficient for correct invocation.
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 100%, and the schema already provides thorough descriptions for both parameters (including side index semantics and outcome id examples). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the orderbook') and narrows scope to 'one outcome side', which helps distinguish it from the sibling get_orderbook. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_orderbook or other outcome-related tools. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.