Order book

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive semantics, so the description earns credit for the operational details it adds: empty results outside trading hours, the meaning of a zero ask price (buy queue) and a zero bid price (sell queue), and that prices are denominated in Rial. These are exactly the quirks that would otherwise be misread by an agent.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler: the primary capability first, then the empty-result caveat, then the edge case decoding and the currency unit. Slightly terse, but every sentence carries information.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the return shape (five levels, with price, volume, order count), edge-case values and units. What is missing is how much the depth view differs from the quote tool and whether the response includes timestamps or ordering guarantees, but the essentials are present.

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 the symbol parameter is fully documented with accepted forms (ticker, exact name such as 'فولاد', or numeric ins_code), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, which is the baseline for a fully documented single-param 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 names the resource precisely: the five best bid/ask levels of one instrument, including the fields returned (price, volume, order count). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the obvious sibling ts_get_quote, so an agent must infer that this is the depth view versus the top-of-book view.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative. The note that the book is empty outside trading hours is useful context about when the call returns nothing, but it is still only implied usage guidance.

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