alpha_get_open_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default wallet behavior, which is valuable, but doesn't mention other behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or pagination details (implied by itemsPerPage but not explained). The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential contextual information about default behavior. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted space.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and a key default behavior, but lacks information about return format, error handling, or other behavioral expectations that would help an agent use it correctly in complex scenarios.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the default behavior for walletAddress (uses active MCP wallet if omitted), but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the specific action ('Fetch all open orders') and resource ('for a wallet on a specific Alpha Arcade market'), distinguishing it from siblings like alpha_get_positions (positions) or alpha_get_orderbook (orderbook). It precisely defines scope without ambiguity.

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 context for when to use this tool (to get open orders for a wallet on a market) and includes a helpful default behavior (uses active MCP wallet if walletAddress omitted). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternatives like alpha_get_positions or specify when not to use it.

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