get_orderbook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a read-style 'Get' operation and that only one symbol is accepted, but it does not disclose depth of the order book, data freshness, or any access requirements.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a tightly scoped Args block. The Korean parenthetical is minor redundancy but does not meaningfully hurt readability.

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 an output schema available, this description covers what the agent needs to invoke it correctly. It does not discuss return structure in prose, but the output schema covers that, so this is sufficient.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates for the single 'symbol' parameter by explaining the ticker format, the lack of a market prefix, giving concrete KRX and US examples, and emphasizing the one-symbol-per-call rule.

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 states a specific action ('Get'), a specific resource ('current bid/ask order book'), and a clear scope ('for a single symbol'). This is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_current_price or get_candles based on the resource alone.

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 implies use when an order book snapshot for one symbol is needed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. It does provide useful invocation constraints like one symbol per call.

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