get_orderbook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it 'gets' the order book, providing no detail on return shape, depth, real-time status, or read-only guarantees. While 'Get' implies a read, it doesn't disclose whether it returns best bid/ask or full-depth levels, which is a meaningful gap.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is zero redundancy or filler, and the key information 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 presence of many sibling market data tools and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to know the return structure (e.g., depth levels, bid/ask arrays) or when this tool is preferable to others. It also lacks any note on pagination or limits. The tool is simple, but the absence of behavioral or return details makes it incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% (the symbol parameter has an explicit description of format), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic information about the parameter beyond saying 'for a symbol,' which is redundant with the schema. It neither enriches nor misleads.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a distinct resource ('order book') with a clearly defined scope ('for a symbol'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_prices and get_trades by targeting the order book specifically.

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 when to use the tool (when you need order book data) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it doesn't mention using get_prices for last prices or get_trades for recent trades. This leaves room for ambiguity among the many market data siblings.

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