List open spot orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context about the paper trading environment (virtual funds, execution policies, fees) and delta polling behavior, exceeding what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose but becomes verbose with detailed execution model and fee information that may not be essential for tool selection or invocation. It could be more concise while retaining key points.

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's complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description covers the core functionality, filtering, delta polling, and environment context. The output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. The extra execution details add some noisy context, but overall completeness is good.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the optionality of coinId, the delta polling pattern for updatedSince, and the purpose of agentTrace, thus improving semantical clarity.

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 it lists open spot orders, specifies the filtering option via coinId, and explains the delta polling mechanism. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like place_spot_order or cancel_spot_order.

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 provides clear usage context: omit coinId for all orders, pass one to filter, and use updatedSince for delta polling. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare with alternatives, but the context is sufficient for typical usage.

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