get_orderbook

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds that the tool returns bid/ask orderbook data and specifies symbol formats, but it does not disclose depth, aggregation, or rate limits. Given the annotations cover safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two concise sentences: one stating the purpose and one clarifying the parameter format. No wasted words; front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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 with one parameter and an output schema available, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the essential purpose and parameter format. However, it could add context such as market availability or orderbook depth, but these are not critical given the output schema.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It clearly explains the 'symbol' parameter with specific formats and examples (KRX 6-digit or US ticker), fully compensating for the schema's lack of documentation. This exceeds the baseline for low coverage.

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 it gets the bid/ask orderbook for a given symbol, using a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_prices and get_trades by naming the exact data type. The symbol format guidance further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 use for retrieving orderbook data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_prices or get_trades. It offers no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, but the tool name and market data context provide some implicit guidance.

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