Get 8DX Limit Order History

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that results are paginated, but does not disclose whether authentication is needed, if the operation is read-only, rate limits, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a read operation with no annotation safety signals.

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 core action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain pagination mechanics (cursor vs offset), return format, any prerequisites, or clarify the difference from the sibling tool. The description is insufficient for reliable use.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents; it only restates the 'maker' parameter as 'maker address,' which is redundant.

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 gets paginated limit-order history for a maker address, which is specific and actionable. However, it does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling tool eightdx_get_limit_orders_by_maker, so there is ambiguity about the exact difference.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the closely related sibling eightdx_get_limit_orders_by_maker. The description simply states the function without giving context about appropriate use cases, exclusions, or alternatives.

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