orders

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

The description substantially enriches the annotations by disclosing that paper mode reads a local ledger rather than the brokerage, that no session or PIN is needed in that mode, that the result contains a 'PAPER ACCOUNT' marker, and that the endpoint is pending verification. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the safe-read-only profile conveyed by the annotations.

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 long but every sentence carries necessary operational detail, especially given the absence of an output schema. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then expands into filtering, response-field interpretation, auth, paper mode, and verification status. Mildly, the paper-mode section is dense and could be structured more cleanly, but the content justifies the length.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is remarkably complete: it explains the order statuses returned, how filtering is reflected in `request`, how to interpret `side` vs `sideRaw`, the authentication requirement, the paper-mode exception, and the unverified status. An agent has enough context to call the tool and interpret its result correctly without additional schemas.

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?

The schema already fully documents `symbol` with an IDX ticker example and 'omit for all open orders,' so the description adds little beyond restating 'filter to one stock.' The extra detail about `request`, `side`, and `sideRaw` concerns response fields rather than the input parameter, so it does not raise the parameter-sematics score above the baseline.

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 identifies the resource as open orders and their statuses ('working', 'partially filled', 'rejected'), which makes the tool's purpose clear. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve' and does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling `orderbook`, but the status vocabulary makes it clear this concerns user orders rather than market depth.

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?

It gives concrete usage instructions: pass `symbol` to filter, quote `sideRaw` when `side` is absent, and handle paper mode without sending the user to a terminal. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when this should be preferred over siblings, but the context and exclusions are clear enough.

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