edgex_get_depth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the returned data (bids and asks) but omits authentication requirements, rate limits, response structure, and any read-only side-effect guarantees. The verb 'Get' implies non-mutating behavior, but that is not explicitly disclosed.

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. It immediately states the core purpose and includes the key qualifier 'bids and asks' without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple and its schema is well documented, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not specify the response format, the meaning of depth levels, or default behavior beyond what the schema already provides, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptive definitions: symbol gives examples, level defines enum choices and default. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('order book depth (bids and asks) for a contract'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ticker, kline, and funding, which serve different data purposes.

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 intended use is implied by the description: an agent should call this when it needs order book depth. However, there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions and no alternatives are named, so guidance is only implicit.

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