atas_orders

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 mentions 'working (active) orders' but does not state whether orders are filtered by symbol or any other implicit constraints, nor does it disclose potential latency or data freshness. It adds no context beyond what the tool name suggests.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose ('All working (active) orders'). It lists fields efficiently without redundancy, but could be more structured for readability.

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 no parameters and an output schema exists (signaled by context), the description is fairly complete for a simple listing tool. However, it lacks details on typical use cases, such as checking order status before placing new orders, and does not clarify the scope (e.g., all markets or current account). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates by listing the fields returned, which is conceptually similar to documenting parameters. This establishes a baseline, as the description adds meaning about the output, which is useful for an agent.

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 the tool lists all working (active) orders and enumerates the fields returned (ID, direction, type, price, etc.), which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like atas_trades or atas_position, though the focus on 'orders' suggests distinction.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like atas_trades (for fills) or atas_position (for positions). The description implies it is for active orders, but does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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