futures_order_book

Does 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 only states 'Get futures order book depth' without mentioning rate limits, behavior when limit is invalid, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that may have constraints.

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 a single, brief sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without wasted space.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is somewhat sparse. It does not explain the return structure (e.g., bids/asks) or depth ordering. While adequate for basic use, more detail would improve completeness for agents unfamiliar with order books.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, describing both 'symbol' and 'limit' with acceptable detail (e.g., depth options and default). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the action ('get') and the resource ('futures order book depth'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from siblings such as 'futures_ticker_price' and 'futures_klines' by specifying order book depth.

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 retrieving order book depth, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'futures_recent_trades' or 'futures_ticker_24hr'. No exclusions or context are given.

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