get_live_orderbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns all resting limit orders with prices and sizes and indicates real-time data. However, it does not clarify whether this is a one-time snapshot or a stream, nor does it mention response structure, rate limits, or authentication needs. Some useful context is present, but gaps remain.

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-loaded with the primary action and resource, with no wasted words. Each clause adds value: 'full real-time', 'bids and asks', 'CLOB', 'all resting limit orders with prices and sizes'. Excellent conciseness.

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 simple one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (order book, resting orders, prices, sizes) and the domain (Polymarket CLOB). It lacks details on order book depth, bid/ask structure, or whether the response is paginated, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this complexity level.

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 already covers the only parameter with 'CLOB token ID', achieving 100% coverage. The description adds that the token is for a Polymarket outcome token, which slightly clarifies context, but it does not add deeper meaning like format, validation, or how to obtain the token ID. Baseline 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 the tool retrieves the full real-time order book (bids and asks) for a Polymarket outcome token from the CLOB. It specifies the resource (order book), scope (bids/asks, all resting limit orders, prices and sizes), and differentiates it from sibling tools like get_orderbook_trades or get_live_prices.

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 one needs a complete order book view, and the mention of 'full real-time' and 'all resting limit orders' gives context against price/spread tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it does not fully reach the 'explicit when/when-not' level.

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