get_order_book

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It says 'live per call' (non-cached) and '5 levels is the maximum depth,' which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not state auth needs, rate limits, or explicitly confirm it's read-only (though implied). It adds some value but is incomplete.

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 efficient sentences: first front-loads the core purpose, second explains details and behavioral note. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema). The description covers essential purpose and data fields. However, without output schema, it could have described the return structure more explicitly (e.g., array of levels). It's adequate but not fully complete.

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 single parameter 'symbol' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds only 'for one symbol' without clarifying format, allowed values, or how to specify. This is insufficient for an agent to construct valid input without external knowledge.

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 'Live 5-level order book for one symbol' and explains what each level contains (bid/ask price, volume, order count). It also notes an imbalance detection use case. This is specific and distinguishes from siblings like get_quote or get_market_watch.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'live per call' but gives no guidance on scenarios or exclusions. Siblings like get_quote or get_price_history are not compared, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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