market_orderbook

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

Without annotations, the description fails to disclose important behavioral traits like data freshness, rate limits, or potential performance impacts (e.g., large limit values). It only states that it returns bids/asks, leaving the agent uninformed about caveats.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose and a fragment detailing the limit parameter. No redundant information, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate for a simple data retrieval tool but lacks usage guidance and behavioral details. It does not explain what the returned data contains (beyond bids/asks) or how to interpret it, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value by explicitly listing the allowable values for 'limit' (5/10/20/50/100/500/1000/5000) and the default of 100, which the schema description only vaguely describes as '深度档位'. This enhances parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 the verb '获取' (get) and the resource '订单簿深度' (order book depth), explicitly including bids/asks. It distinguishes from sibling tools like market_klines or market_ticker by specifying the order book nature.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as market_book_ticker (which provides best bid/ask). The description only lists parameters but does not contextualize usage scenarios or exclusions.

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