get_orderbook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what side effects (e.g., no destructive actions). The description focuses on output modes but lacks transparency about the tool's operational 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 extremely concise and well-structured. It begins with a clear title in brackets, then lists each mode in a bulleted format with a one-line explanation. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given that there are 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should provide more context. It explains modes but does not clarify parameter interactions (e.g., how topN or ranges apply to each mode) or the response format. The missing details reduce completeness for a tool of this complexity.

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 description adds meaning for the 'mode' parameter by explaining each enum value, but the other five parameters (pair, topN, ranges, bandsPct, priceZones) are not described at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates by explaining modes, leaving most parameters unexplained.

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 the tool's purpose: it is an integrated tool for order book, depth, and bid-ask spread data. The multiple modes (summary, pressure, statistics, raw) are explicitly listed, distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_* or get_candles which focus on different 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 describes four modes with brief explanations of what each returns (e.g., summary: top N layers+spread; pressure: buy/sell pressure per band). This provides context for when to use each mode, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. The guidance is implicit but adequate.

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