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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, it discloses critical behavioral facts: this resolves the current user's data from their API key with no way to query another wallet, that a null dca_schedules means the read failed rather than no DCAs, and the data_warning self-contradiction rule. It also explains the origin field lifecycle and what each output field carries.

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?

Well front-loaded, opening with the core scope before expanding into history, row-reading, and DCA details. However, it is dense and somewhat repetitive toward the end (restating the DCA/orders relationship twice), which slightly exceeds what's needed given the schema already covers the params.

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 7-param tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers scope, history mode, fallback behavior, literal field interpretations, and multi-tool interactions. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret results 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 coverage is 86%, so the schema already documents most params. The description adds real meaning: status='terminal' = full history, page stepping only when the answer isn't on page one, and token_address matching either the sold or bought token. It mostly reinforces rather than extending the schema, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 resource ('The user's single orders — limit orders, take-profit and stop-loss') and immediately qualifies the default scope ('only LIVE ones, not executed yet'). It explicitly differentiates from siblings like get_my_dca_schedules and clarifies the boundary that a DCA's slices never appear here.

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 explicit when-to-use conditions: 'use that before placing a new order (to avoid duplicates) and to find an order_id for cancel_order.' It also gives the history trigger ('pass status=terminal') and a fallback instruction to call get_my_dca_schedules when dca_schedules is null. No sibling ambiguity remains.

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