get_orderbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool uses a live WebSocket buffer when warm and falls back to REST, plus a depth cap at 100 and freshness fields. It does not cover error cases or latency implications, but is fairly transparent for a read-only data retrieval.

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 concise sentences: the first establishes purpose, the second details return fields and data source behavior. No filler or redundancy, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description adds depth cap and the WebSocket/REST fallback context. However, it lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings and does not mention error handling or exchange requirements. Overall adequate for a straightforward snapshot tool, but not exhaustive.

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 explains the 'depth' parameter (top-N bids/asks capped at 100) but does not elaborate on 'symbol' or 'exchange' beyond their names. These are relatively self-explanatory, but the description only partially fills the gap.

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 the current order book snapshot with computed spread,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_ticker and get_ohlcv, which address different market data types.

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 ('Get the current order book snapshot') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or mention sibling tools. The context is clear but guidance is not explicit.

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