avanza_open_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the tool lists live data and returns stable IDs, and the verb 'List' implies a non-mutating operation. However, it does not disclose staleness/refresh behavior, session or account scope requirements, or behavior for empty results, so the transparency is only partial.

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?

One efficient sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the filter options and the edit/cancel use case. There is no filler and no redundant restatement of the input schema.

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 tool is relatively complex: 10 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a dense sibling list. The description covers the core listing purpose and filter options, but omits routing among raw/ongoing/instrument-scoped siblings, parameter semantics, and return behavior, so an agent cannot fully determine correct invocation 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 description coverage is only 20%, covering just the two session-related parameters, so the description must compensate for the other eight. The description only mentions filters by instrument, side, or status, and leaves compact, refresh, account_id, orderbook_id/order_book_id, and session scoping unexplained. This is insufficient for a 10-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb, 'List', and a precise resource: 'live open/pending regular orders'. It also narrows scope with 'regular' and highlights 'stable IDs for edit/cancel flows', which separates it from siblings like avanza_open_orders_raw and avanza_instrument_open_orders.

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 phrase 'stable IDs for edit/cancel flows' implies when to use this tool: before editing or canceling an order. However, it does not explicitly route the agent away from sibling tools such as avanza_open_orders_raw, avanza_ongoing_orders, or avanza_instrument_open_orders, leaving some comparison to inference.

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