get_order_cost

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states it is a 'get' operation, implying read-only, but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or potential errors. The description fails to compensate for the missing 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 a single concise sentence of five words, front-loading the purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail, but given the complexity of the system and the number of parameters, a slightly longer description could improve clarity without harming conciseness.

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?

With no output schema and minimal description, the agent lacks information about return values, potential errors, and the meaning of inputs. The tool is part of a large set of financial operations; this description does not provide enough context for an agent to determine correct invocation without additional heuristics.

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 has three parameters (market, order_id, fill_amount) with no descriptions, and overall schema_description_coverage is 0%. The description adds no explanation of what these parameters mean, their formats, or valid values. The agent must infer semantics from names alone, which is insufficient for correct use.

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 action (get) and the resource (cost to fill an order), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'cost' entails (e.g., estimated vs. actual), and does not differentiate it from other get_ tools like get_price or get_buy_order_amounts_out, though the unique combination of parameters suggests a distinct function.

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, such as get_price or get_buy_order_amounts_out. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. This forces the agent to rely solely on the tool name and returned data.

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