get_open_orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only and describes the special response when the engine is not running. This is good behavioral context, though it could be more thorough about normal return behavior or potential errors.

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 three sentences long, each adding value: purpose, usage guidance, and a behavioral note. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the purpose, usage, and a specific edge case (engine not running), but fails to describe the normal return structure. Since no output schema is present, the description should explain what the successful response contains (e.g., list of orders, fields). This gap lowers 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description merely rephrases the filter parameter without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Read in-flight orders from the runtime state snapshot,' providing a specific verb and resource. It also gives usage examples like 'what orders are pending,' which solidifies the purpose and distinguishes it from mutation tools like cancel_order or place_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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this for what orders are pending / do I have anything sitting on Bybit.' It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling tool names and the read-only nature.

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