orders

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

With readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint already present, the description still adds substantial behavior: the `request` echo distinguishes empty results from non-applied filters, `sideRaw` preserves raw wire values, auth is required, and field mapping was partly verified with missing values treated as not-zero. This is far beyond what annotations convey.

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 opens with the main purpose and immediately gives the critical filter instruction. The caveats and verification notes are dense but each earns its place; the final verification paragraph is longer than strictly necessary but still useful.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does a strong job of explaining return semantics: statuses covered, filter echo, side vs sideRaw, readFrom mapping, and missing-value behavior. It also warns about partly verified fields and the auth requirement, so an agent has enough context to call and interpret it correctly.

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 input schema already covers the only parameter `symbol` at 100%, so the description doesn't need to add much. It repeats the filter-to-one-stock behavior and implies the request echo, but that's about the response, not the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 current orders on the book and enumerates the statuses it covers, which makes the tool's function clear. It doesn't use an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', and it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling 'orderbook', but the content is specific enough not to be confused with portfolio or quote tools.

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 instructions: pass `symbol` to filter, omit for all open orders, and use `sideRaw` when `side` is absent. It also states the prerequisite trading-session requirement. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like `orderbook` or `position`, so it stops short of a 5.

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