get_outcome_book

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It only states what is returned, not behavioral aspects like read-only safety, network defaults, or error behavior. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation but is not explicit.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the intended action. Every word is purposeful with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should offer more contextual details. It lists high-level return fields but omits specifics like default network or bid/ask ordering.

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 schema already describes outcomeId and side, and the description adds no extra parameter meaning. The network parameter is not mentioned in the description, leaving schema coverage at 67% with no compensation.

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 function: 'Get the L2 orderbook for a specific outcome side' using a specific verb and resource. It also lists the returned content (bids, asks, spread, and depth summary), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_outcome_depth_summary.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_outcome_depth_summary. It does not mention exclusions or conditions, leaving usage entirely implied by the purpose.

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