avanza_ongoing_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does add meaningful behavioral context by stating that the result combines live stop-losses, live open orders, and optionally paper active orders. However, it does not disclose what 'ongoing' excludes, how filters like side, status, compact, or refresh affect results, or what the response contains.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the main purpose immediately and uses a colon to efficiently enumerate the components of the result.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, a one-sentence description is not enough. Missing context includes how account selection works, what the compact flag changes, when refresh matters, and what the returned order/stop-loss data looks like, so an agent would have to guess at most of the invocation details.

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 only 18%, and the description compensates for only two aspects: 'selected account' maps to account_id and 'optional paper active orders' maps to include_paper. The remaining nine parameters, including compact, refresh, orderbook_id/order_book_id, instrument_name, and status, receive no explanation in either the schema or the description.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and a concrete resource ('ongoing orders') and immediately disambiguates what that resource contains: live stop-losses plus live open orders, with optional paper active orders. This composition clearly separates it from sibling tools like avanza_open_orders and avanza_stoplosses.

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 is given about when to use this tool instead of avanza_open_orders, avanza_stoplosses, avanza_open_orders_raw, or avanza_paper_orders. The phrase 'selected account' implies account-level scope, but there are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing hints.

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