Get 8DX Order Status

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 adds a useful non-obvious behavior: returning block explorer links for filled transaction hashes. However, it does not mention potential outcomes for unfilled orders, error handling, or whether any side effects occur (though 'gets' implies read-only). The description is partially transparent but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core function ('Gets an 8DX limit order by hash') and adds one relevant detail. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary information, making it highly efficient.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose and one return aspect (explorer links). However, it does not clarify the full return structure, such as what status fields are included or what happens when the order is not found. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more detail would be needed for full completeness.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters are described in the schema), the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it confirms orderHash is used as the lookup key but does not elaborate on blockchain values or add any new semantic insights.

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's function: 'Gets an 8DX limit order by hash' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_limit_orders_by_maker (list by maker) and get_limit_order_history (historical orders) by focusing on single order lookup by hash.

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 phrase 'by hash' implies this tool is for querying a specific order when you have its hash, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no guidance comparing it to get_limit_orders_by_maker or get_limit_order_history, so usage context is only implied.

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