get_open_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a list of open orders, which implies a read operation. However, it does not disclose pagination, maximum results, authorization requirements, or potential side effects, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 extremely concise with three short sentences. It uses a clear 'Args:' and 'Returns:' structure, making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description only says 'List of open orders' without detailing the fields of each order. This is an important gap for an AI agent that needs to process the response. The description is adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning beyond the schema. It defines 'symbol' as 'The trading pair' and 'category' as 'Product type: spot, linear, inverse (default: spot)', which clarifies the parameters beyond the raw schema. However, it could provide examples or further details.

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 clearly states the tool gets open orders for a symbol, using a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like get_order_history (which includes closed orders) and get_open_closed_orders by explicitly stating '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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_open_closed_orders, get_spread_open_orders, or cancel_order. It does not state exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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