get_orderbook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention potential rate limits, latency, or whether it requires authentication (unlike siblings like 'place_order' that likely do). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's operational context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly addresses what the tool does, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 read-only data retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return format (e.g., structure of bid/ask levels), error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. Given the complexity of financial data and the presence of related tools, more context would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('symbol' and 'depth') with details like default values. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'depth' affects performance or what 'bid/ask levels' entail. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the action ('Get') and resource ('current orderbook (bid/ask levels) for a market'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ticker' or 'get_markets', which might also provide market data but in different formats.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_ticker' for price data or 'get_markets' for market listings. It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as needing an active market session or authentication, which could be relevant given sibling tools like 'activate' or 'register'.

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