View today's order book

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the read-only nature, the server's inability to mutate orders, and the important quirk that the response shape is unpublished and passed through unvalidated, so the agent must inspect field names rather than assume them.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states what the tool does, the second clarifies the read-only scope, and the third flags a crucial response-handling caveat. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the resource being viewed, the read-only constraint, and the unvalidated response shape with explicit guidance to read field names. Nothing important is missing for invoking the tool correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and response shape rather than adding unnecessary parameter details.

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 states a specific verb ('View'), a precise resource ('today's orders and their fill status'), and clearly frames the tool as a read of the order book. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_positions or get_holdings because it focuses on today's orders and fill status rather than holdings or positions.

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 explicitly says this is a READ operation and that the server cannot place, modify, or cancel orders, giving an agent clear boundaries on when to use this tool versus actions that mutate orders. It does not name specific sibling alternatives, but the context is clear and sufficient for a read-only order-book lookup.

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