Get Market Depth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: empty order-book sides outside trading hours are normal, so agents should not treat them as errors. It does not mention read-only status, rate limits, or data recency beyond the word 'live', but the note is useful.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first states the core payload and the second adds a necessary edge-case caveat. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and an important non-obvious behavior. It is slightly incomplete around symbol format and when to choose this tool over nearby siblings, but otherwise adequate.

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 has one required parameter, symbol, with no description; the description also does not explain symbol format or meaning. Because schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving the agent to infer that symbol is a market ticker.

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 identifies the tool as a live order book with best bid/ask levels, volumes, and session price statistics, which clearly states what it does. It differentiates from quote and history tools by emphasizing order book depth, though it lacks an explicit verb and direct sibling comparison.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to prefer get_market_depth over siblings like get_quote or top_movers. The only contextual note, that empty sides are normal outside trading hours, explains an expected condition rather than usage criteria.

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