get_hl_open_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only, external-venue nature is covered. The description contributes one extra behavioral fact, 'No auth required,' which is genuinely useful for an agent deciding whether it can call this directly, but it omits return format or pagination behavior. A 3 is right given annotations carry most of the safety profile.

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 short sentences, zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the auth note. Nothing to trim or reorganize.

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 simple read-only query with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented parameter, the description is serviceable. However, with no output schema, it says nothing about what an 'open order' record contains or whether results are paginated, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents walletAddress as 'Wallet address to query.' The description's 'for a wallet' merely restates this and adds no format, chain, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('open orders'), venue ('HyperLiquid') and scope ('for a wallet'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from similarly named siblings such as get_limit_orders or get_hl_trade_history, leaving the agent to infer which order-listing tool applies.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_limit_orders, get_hl_trade_history, or the perp-position tools. The only usage signal is the implied 'wallet has open orders' condition, which the agent must infer.

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