get_orderbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the merging transformation (NO bids become YES asks, etc.), sorting order, and that it includes spread calculation. This provides good insight into what the tool does beyond just fetching data.

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 long, front-loads the purpose, and packs significant detail (merging logic, sorting, spread) without any wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description explains the structure of the orderbook (merged, sorted, includes spread) adequately. However, it does not mention if there are limits on the number of orders returned or pagination, which might be needed for completeness. Overall, it covers the key aspects.

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 only parameter, 'marketAppId', is fully described in the schema as 'The market app ID (number)'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool fetches the on-chain orderbook as a unified YES-perspective view, explicitly contrasting with a standard orderbook by describing the merging of all four sides. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_full_orderbook' which presumably returns the raw orderbook.

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 a YES-perspective unified orderbook is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_full_orderbook' or 'stream_orderbook'. No exclusion criteria or context for when not to use it is given.

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