Best Bid/Offer

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

Annotations indicate `readOnlyHint: true` and `idempotentHint: true`, so the description adds context about data minimality and suitability for quick decisions. No contradictions; however, it does not disclose exact fields returned (handled by output schema).

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 well-structured with a lead sentence followed by bullet points and examples. It is slightly verbose (e.g., 'perfect for quick decisions or when full orderbook depth isn't needed' could be merged), but overall efficient and 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?

Given the single parameter, clear annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers usage scenarios thoroughly. It explains why and when to use the BBO, which suffices for complete understanding.

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 `market_id` has a clear schema description ('Market symbol to get BBO for'). With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves the best bid/offer prices for immediate execution decisions. It uses specific verbs ('Get', 'Calculate', 'Monitor') and distinguishes from sibling tools like `paradex_orderbook` by emphasizing 'without full orderbook depth'.

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?

Explicitly lists when to use (e.g., 'Make quick trading decisions without full orderbook depth', 'Calculate current spread costs') and provides example use cases. It implies alternatives by contrasting with full orderbook depth, helping the agent select the appropriate tool.

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