get_hl_open_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds one useful behavioral fact — 'No auth required' — which is genuinely non-obvious for an on-chain data tool. However, it doesn't disclose scope hints: whether orders are for perp, spot, or both, pagination, or what happens with an invalid wallet address. The single auth note is helpful but limited coverage for a tool with zero annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the precondition. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant with the schema or name.

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 read-only single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call surface. The gaps are the unknowns: whether 'open orders' means perp, spot, or both, and anything about return shape or pagination. The lack of that disambiguation against the many order-related siblings leaves the agent with reasonable but incomplete context.

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% and there's only one parameter ('walletAddress', described as 'Wallet address to query'). The description implies the wallet is the target, which maps directly to the schema. With complete schema coverage and one self-evident parameter, baseline 3 is appropriate — no additional syntax or format info is added beyond what the schema provides.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get all open orders'), names the venue (HyperLiquid), and scopes it to a wallet. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_limit_orders or get_perp_positions, though 'open orders' vs the sibling 'get_limit_orders' could use one clarifying clause (e.g. spot vs perp).

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. Siblings such as get_limit_orders, direct_cancel_order, get_perp_positions all live in adjacent territory, and the description gives no condition for choosing this one. 'No auth required' is a hint about a precondition, but there's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.

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