get_orderbook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is public and requires no credentials, which is valuable. However, it does not explain behavior on invalid market_id, rate limits, or data freshness guarantees. The description is sufficient but leaves gaps.

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 plus a short clarification. It is front-loaded with the core purpose (getting the order book) and immediately adds the public context. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool has one simple parameter and no output schema. The description explains what the tool returns (bids/asks with price and size) and that it operates on a single market. This is sufficient for a straightforward read-only tool with no complex side effects.

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 covers 100% of the parameters (only market_id) and provides a description and example. The description does not add extra semantic detail beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get the current order book (bids/asks with price + size) for one market.' The verb 'get' specifies the action, and the resource and scope are explicitly defined. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_ticker (which provides different market data) and get_open_orders (which returns user-specific orders). The public nature is also highlighted.

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 mentions 'Public — no credentials needed,' implying it can be called without authentication, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ticker or list_markets. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, making it adequate but not exemplary.

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