Derive MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirements, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, pagination, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral traits for a read operation with potential complexity.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes essential authentication note. Every word contributes value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and authentication but lacks details on return values, error cases, or operational constraints. For a tool with three parameters and sibling complexity, it is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering by currency and instrument name, but does not elaborate on syntax or usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'all open orders for a subaccount', specifying order status and details. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_orders_history' by focusing on open orders, but does not explicitly compare or differentiate beyond this scope, making it clear but not fully sibling-aware.

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 retrieving open orders from a subaccount, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_orders_history' or 'get_my_trades'. It mentions authentication as a prerequisite, offering some context, but lacks details on exclusions or specific scenarios.

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