Crypto order books

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: level 0 is best price, sizes are in base units, levels beyond depth are truncated, and empty levels are dropped but surfaced in notes. It stops short of rate limits, auth, or pagination/ordering guarantees.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler, front-loading the resource and the row-per-level structure before the depth/default detail. Slightly clause-heavy, but every phrase carries information about output shape or truncation behavior.

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?

With no output schema, the description does meaningful work to explain the return format (row per level and side, best price first, base-unit sizes, dropped levels counted in notes). It is nearly complete for correct invocation, though the notes field and remaining row columns are only partially characterized.

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%, with both tickers (BASE/QUOTE format) and depth (1-1000, default 20) fully documented in the schema. The description restates the default depth and per-side semantics but adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (latest order book per crypto pair) and goes further by describing the output shape: one row per price level and side. This clearly separates it from trade/quote siblings like crypto_latest_quotes or crypto_trades, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'latest order book' with per-level granularity signals depth/L2 retrieval, distinguishing it implicitly from top-of-book quote tools. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative anywhere in the text.

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