Toss Get Orderbook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the market scope (KRX or US) and that it operates on a single symbol, but says nothing about orderbook depth, bid/ask level counts, or real-time vs delayed data — behavior an agent would likely want.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though the terseness is close to underspecification rather than true economy.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter descriptions and no annotation detail on data freshness, the description should say more about what an orderbook response contains and how to interpret it. As written, an agent can call it but cannot predict its output shape.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does partially by implying symbol is a KRX or US stock identifier, but it never states the format (e.g., KRX numeric code vs US ticker) or how the market is inferred.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get orderbook data') plus the scope ('one KRX or US stock symbol'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as toss_get_prices or toss_get_trades, which also expose per-symbol market data.

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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives like toss_get_prices or toss_get_trades, even though several siblings overlap in scope. The only context an agent can infer is from the resource name itself.

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