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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the output format and that best price comes first. It omits details like real-time vs. historical data, pagination, error handling, rate limits, or data freshness, which are critical for an order book tool.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it is not optimally concise; it could include parameter hints or usage notes without becoming verbose. It earns a marginally adequate score.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description should thoroughly explain inputs and outputs. It states output format but omits parameter explanations, sorting direction (best price = lowest ask/highest bid?), and whether limit applies to both sides. This is insufficient for correct usage.

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 input schema has 3 parameters (symbol required, type and limit optional) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter, not even the required 'symbol'. This fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving agents to guess parameter purpose.

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 retrieves the order book (market depth) with bid and ask price levels, and specifies the return format as [price, quantity] arrays with best price first. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recent_trades or get_kline, which serve different purposes.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_intraday, get_ticker). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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