get_hip4_tpsl

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds value beyond this by specifying that it returns take-profit and stop-loss orders with trigger prices and triggered status, and that it accepts legacy coin forms. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and is brief (two sentences). It efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary verbosity, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers input coin format, output content (TP/SL orders with trigger prices and status), and mentions pagination only implicitly via the cursor parameter in schema. The description is adequate for this type of read-history tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minor semantic value by clarifying that 'bare numeric coins are canonical' and legacy forms are accepted, but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Get'), resource ('HIP-4 TP/SL order history'), and tier ('Pro+ tier'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_hip3_tpsl or get_tpsl. The example '0' helps immediately identify the coin format.

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 implies usage for HIP-4 Pro+ tiers via the name and tier mention, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., for legacy HIP-3 or non-tiered TP/SL). No 'when not to use' or direct sibling comparison.

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