get_orderbook

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds the token requirement (T-Invest), which is a critical prerequisite not covered by annotations. It also hints at output format (quantity in lots), though the output schema covers that. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage and auth requirement. No redundant or filler content; every clause adds value.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and auth adequately. It does not mention edge cases or alternatives, but for a straightforward order book query, nothing critical is missing. The token requirement and liquidity/spread use case fill the main gaps beyond annotations.

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% – all three parameters (ticker, board, depth) have descriptive text and examples. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description explicitly states the tool returns the exchange order book (best bids and asks) with quantity in lots, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_quote (single price) and get_candles (historical data). It also includes the intended use case for liquidity and spread assessment, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a clear context for when to use the tool ('needed for assessing liquidity and spread'), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. This is clear context without active routing to sibling tools, so it falls short of the highest tier.

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