Order Book

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

The description repeats readOnlyHint and idempotentHint verbatim, which earns no credit since annotations already declare them. The one genuinely additive behavioral fact is 'No login required', a real auth disclosure; the bucket return shape is already covered by the output schema. Adequate but thin beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences that lead with what is returned and then route to alternatives; no filler. The return-shape clause is mildly redundant with the output schema but still reads naturally.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile, an output schema covering return values, and 100% schema coverage on parameters, the description supplies the remaining gaps: auth requirement, the market-estimation use case, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (including the enum for resourceType) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of viewer address, minimum delegate amount, and duration merely restates those fields without adding syntax, defaults, or interaction rules. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read market depth buckets for ENERGY or BANDWIDTH') plus the exact return shape `{ min, max, value }`. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the similarly named siblings `tronsave_internal_order_book`, `tronsave_list_orders`, and `tronsave_get_order`.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('estimate market ranges before create/update decisions') and names two alternatives with the condition that selects each: `tronsave_estimate_buy_resource` for quote-style estimation and `tronsave_get_order` for a single concrete order.

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