hl_l2_book

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

No annotations are provided, and the description provides minimal behavioral disclosure. 'Snapshot' implies a point-in-time read-only view, but there is no mention of depth, aggregation, symbol format requirements, or any side effects. The description adds little beyond the purpose.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple, one-parameter snapshot tool, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any context about how this relates to other tools (e.g., when to prefer l2_book over all_mids) and doesn't mention whether it's specific to spot or perpetual markets, which could be relevant given the sibling tools. An output schema exists but is not visible here, so the description carries extra weight.

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 schema provides no description for the 'coin' parameter (0% coverage). The description adds clarity by specifying it is a coin symbol with examples 'BTC, ETH', which helps the agent understand the expected input format. However, it doesn't go further to explain casing or market context.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving an L2 order book snapshot for a coin symbol, with specific examples (BTC, ETH) and implicitly distinguishes it from sibling market data tools like hl_candles and hl_all_mids.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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