getOrderbook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that this is a read operation ('Get') and mentions derived outputs (spread, midprice), which is helpful. However, it does not describe response shape beyond those values, level depth, pagination, or error behavior.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then appends the distinguishing computed values. Every word adds value and there is no repetition of schema-only 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 simple read-only tool with fully described parameters, the description is largely sufficient: it names the orderbook resource and the important computed fields. There is no output schema, so mentioning spread and midprice is valuable, though it could be stronger by explicitly noting bids/asks or routing to sibling tools.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters, including formats for sellingAsset and buyingAsset and the range/default for limit. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a concrete resource ('Stellar DEX orderbook') plus the key computed outputs ('spread and midprice'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like getOffers or getPrice, since it identifies the orderbook and its derived metrics.

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 that this tool should be used when an orderbook for a Stellar asset pair is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as getOffers or getPrice. There are no exclusions or alternative routing hints.

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