bitpin_get_orderbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add two genuinely useful operational facts: a hard truncation of 20 rows per side and a rate limit of 60/min. It does not mention whether authentication is required or whether the data is a live snapshot, leaving a small 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the capacity limit, then the rate limit. Nothing is redundant and nothing important is buried.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, data shape, truncation, and throttling. It stops short of stating auth requirements or confirming the return field structure (price/quantity levels), which would fully close the loop.

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% and the schema's own description already gives example symbols in both Latin and Persian form. The description only restates "specified market pair" without adding normalization or case rules, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ("Get orderbook") and qualifies what it contains ("bids and asks") for a scoped resource ("a specified market pair on BitPin"). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling market-data tools like bitpin_get_tickers or bitpin_get_recent_trades.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus bitpin_get_tickers, bitpin_get_recent_trades, or bitpin_get_markets, nor does it state any preconditions. The use case is inferable from the resource name, but no guidance or routing is offered.

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