avanza_open_orders_raw

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and safety. It reveals this is a debug/diagnostic read and that it returns both normalized and raw payloads, but it is silent on whether a session is required, whether refresh mutates state, the potential size of the raw payload, or any auth/rate-limit behavior.

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; 'Debug tool' immediately sets expectations. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose and unique output.

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 11 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-sentence description is inadequate. It omits how parameters filter the orders, what 'schema diagnostics' means in practice, and how the raw payload should be handled. An agent would struggle to construct a correct first invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for 11 parameters, but it mentions none of them. The term 'raw' hints at include_raw, but it is ambiguous whether raw is always returned or gated by the boolean. No meaning is added beyond the schema for side, status, compact, refresh, account_id, orderbook_id, or instrument_name.

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 states a specific verb ('return'), a clear resource ('normalized open orders plus raw Avanza order payload'), and a distinct purpose ('schema diagnostics'). The 'Debug tool' label differentiates it from sibling tools like avanza_open_orders by signaling this is not the normal trading path.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling order tools. No explicit alternatives, no conditions, and no exclusion like 'use avanza_open_orders for production calls'. The label 'Debug tool' weakly implies diagnostic usage, but that is not enough.

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