orderbook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on market coverage, depth of levels, snapshot vs streaming, or call cost implications for an open-world market data source.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient rather than padded, though the terseness contributes to the gaps in other dimensions.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and only one parameter is required, keeping the surface small. What remains missing is the symbol format and the distinction from 'quote', both of which an agent needs to invoke this correctly in a crowded sibling set.

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 0%, and the description says nothing about 'symbol' — no format, no market convention (e.g., US ticker vs KR code), even though sibling tools imply both markets are in play. With an undocumented required parameter, the definition fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific action ('조회' = retrieve) and a specific resource ('호가', clarified as bid/ask quantities), so the agent knows this returns order book levels rather than trades or prices. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling 'quote' or 'candles', leaving the boundary to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over 'quote' (last price) or 'candles' (OHLC series), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage signal is the implied 'retrieve an orderbook', which an agent must map to its own intent unaided.

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