Get Order Book

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the level tuple format, ordering ('best first'), and the price denomination (IRT or USDT). It does not mention the depth cap, but the schema does.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the one non-obvious output detail. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-format information; it explains the level tuple and spread, which is the essential payload. A brief note on the overall response shape (e.g. bids/asks arrays) would close the remaining gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above that by clarifying the ambiguous 'quantity in coin' meaning of the second level element and tying price units to the quote currency, which the schema does not spell out at the level-tuple level.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: top bids and asks for one coin on one exchange, plus the spread. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like ic_get_ticker, ic_recent_trades, and ic_candles, which return different data shapes.

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 usage (when you need depth/liquidity or spread for a market) but never states when to prefer it over ic_get_ticker or ic_compare_price, nor any prerequisites such as first resolving the exchange id via ic_list_exchanges. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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