Get Order Book

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether this is a point-in-time snapshot or a live stream, whether it requires authentication or a subscription, rate limits, or data freshness, leaving the mutation/safety profile of this market-data call undescribed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the missing behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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?

For a read-only market-data tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the essential shape (bids/asks) but omits return-format and snapshot-vs-stream semantics that an agent would need to interpret the result.

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 both 'pair' and 'count' are already documented with examples and defaults in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline of 3 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('get order book (depth)') and clarifies the returned data ('bids and asks'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_ticker or get_recent_trades, though it does not explicitly name a competing tool.

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 resource name: an agent infers this is for market-depth data. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_ticker or get_ohlc_data, and no stated prerequisites.

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