get_depth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Plan/entitlement-gated by the API' and that the symbol must be exact, but it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only or describe error behavior. The entitlement gating adds some value beyond the schema, which only mentions level reduction, not overall access.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, use case, prerequisite, and gating. No wasted words.

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 output schema exists and both parameters are fully documented, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and access restrictions. It does not address edge cases like symbol not found, but the schema's suggestion to use companies_list partially fills that gap. Overall, it is nearly complete for a 2-parameter read tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats 'Requires exact exchange symbol' which is already in the schema, and does not add new meaning to either parameter. The levels parameter is adequately documented in the schema.

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 'Get market depth (order book) for a Saudi stock', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_quote (price) and get_trades (trades) by focusing on the order book.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this for bid/ask ladder, spread, imbalance, and liquidity at the top of book' and mentions the prerequisite 'Requires exact exchange symbol'. It does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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