get_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it. It does not say whether the order must belong to the caller, what happens for an unknown/cancelled order_id, whether authentication is required, or whether the returned status is live or last-known. Only the trivial fact that this is a read is conveyed.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the parameter documented in a clean Args block. The opening clause is somewhat inflated ('granular structural details and fundamental status') where a plain 'returns order details and status' would earn its place better.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and for a single-parameter read tool the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it. The remaining gap (error/auth behavior) is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 0% (order_id has no description in the schema), so the description must compensate and partially does by defining order_id as 'the unique transaction order ID to dynamically query.' However it omits format expectations (string encoding, exchange/symbol scoping), leaving some ambiguity for a required parameter.

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?

Specific verb (Retrieve/query) plus resource (order) and scope (a specifically defined order, i.e. by ID), which distinguishes it from the list-style sibling get_open_orders. The phrasing 'granular structural details and fundamental status' is vague marketing filler rather than a precise statement of what fields come back, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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 explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternatives, but the phrase 'a specifically defined order' implicitly signals the by-ID lookup case versus bulk/list tools like get_open_orders. An agent can infer the use case but is given no exclusions or prerequisite conditions.

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