Carnet d'ordres (DOM)

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuine context on top: the return structure (bid/ask lists of price/size) and the fact that the call can fail for connection- or license-related reasons. It stops short of saying how to detect or work around that unavailability.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the data shape, and the main caveat with zero filler. Nothing to trim.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully describes the response shape and the environmental precondition for failure, and the input schema carries the parameter detail. Adequate for a three-parameter read tool, though it omits any hint of pagination/partial-depth behavior.

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%, so depth, symbolId and connectionId are fully documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics (e.g., how depth interacts with the two-sided list) beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific resource (Level 2 market depth) and even the payload shape (bids/asks {price, size}), which implicitly separates it from quantower_get_quote's top-of-book. However, it never names the sibling it complements or contrasts with, so an agent must infer the Level 1 vs Level 2 split itself.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to quantower_get_quote or the other market-data siblings. The only condition mentioned ('peut être indisponible selon la connexion ou la licence') is an availability caveat, not routing advice.

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