APIbase

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

Annotations fully cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), so the description doesn't need to carry that burden. The description adds the scoping context (AsterDEX-specific) but does not elaborate on behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling for invalid symbols, or the structure of the returned order book data.

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?

Single sentence, nine words, front-loaded with the action verb. Every word earns its place; zero redundancy or fluff while maintaining clarity.

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, 1 required), strong annotations, and standard financial domain concept, the description is sufficiently complete despite lacking an output schema. It could be improved by mentioning the return structure (bids/asks), but the essential information for tool selection and invocation is present.

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% (both 'symbol' and 'limit' have clear descriptions with examples and defaults). The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, meeting the baseline expectation.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'order book depth' and scope 'for a trading pair on AsterDEX'. Explicitly names the specific DEX (AsterDEX), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like hyperliquid.markets.orderbook and polymarket.market.orderbook, as well as from related market data tools like aster.markets.klines.

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?

Usage is implied by the specific terminology ('order book depth' vs 'klines' or 'ticker' in sibling tools), but the description lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or comparisons with alternatives like aster.markets.ticker for current prices or aster.markets.klines for historical OHLCV data.

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