get_market_depth

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

No annotations provided. The description states 'real-time' and outlines return format (bid/ask arrays with quantities), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential behavioral traits such as data refresh rate, depth limits, or any side effects. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value with no 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return value (bid/ask arrays with prices and quantities). It could mention whether depth levels are aggregated or limited, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'comma-separated symbol codes' and 'market type enum'. Baseline score 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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving real-time order book/market depth (bid/ask levels) for given symbols. It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'order book / market depth', and distinguishes it from siblings like get_kline (candlesticks) and get_realtime_trade (trades).

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 usage for real-time market depth data but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_market_breadth or get_market_temperature. It lacks guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer based on sibling names.

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