PCM

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON structure with bids/asks). For a tool interacting with external exchanges, this omission is significant.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's function, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. Every word earns its place, adhering to best practices for 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?

Given the complexity of fetching market data from exchanges, the description is incomplete. There's no output schema, and the description doesn't explain return values (e.g., order book structure). With no annotations and a tool that likely involves network calls and rate limits, more context is needed for the agent to use it effectively, leaving gaps in understanding.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters like 'exchange', 'limit', and 'symbol'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying these are needed for order book retrieval. Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('market order book for a trading pair'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-ticker' or 'get-trades' by specifying order book data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get-exchange-info' might also provide order book details), so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'get-orderbook' over 'get-ticker' for market data, or prerequisites like needing exchange access. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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