kraken_get_order_book

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 uses the read verb 'fetch' but does not mention whether authentication is required, rate limits, or any operational caveats. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the tool name already implies.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose, making it highly concise 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present, no nested objects), the description is mostly complete. The output schema covers return structure, and the description states the core purpose. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling market data tools, slightly reducing 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 for both parameters: 'pair' includes an example (XBTUSD) and 'count' documents the default and maximum. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 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?

The description 'Fetch the current order book depth for an asset pair' uses a specific verb ('fetch'), a clear resource ('order book depth'), and a scope ('asset pair'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ticker info or OHLC, which focus on different types of market data.

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 usage when order book depth is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over related market data tools (e.g., ticker info, recent trades) or any exclusions. The context is implied rather than stated.

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