Order Book

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context, such as the importance for trade execution and examples of real-world applications, going beyond the annotations.

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: a clear opener, a bullet list of use cases, a general statement, and example use cases. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is 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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present), the description thoroughly covers purpose, usage scenarios, and practical examples. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema is provided.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides; the use cases imply how parameters are used but do not explicitly elaborate on depth or market_id behavior.

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: 'Analyze market depth and liquidity to optimize order entry and execution.' It uses a specific verb ('analyze') and resource (order book depth/liquidity), and the listed use cases differentiate it from sibling tools like paradex_bbo, paradex_klines, etc.

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 explicitly lists specific scenarios for use (e.g., assessing liquidity, identifying support/resistance, determining optimal prices, detecting imbalances). It provides clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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