get_twap_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only adds the authentication requirement and hints at return content but does not disclose side effects, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior. Minimal behavioral context beyond the read nature implied by 'List'.

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?

A single sentence of 15 words efficiently conveys purpose, scope, and a key requirement. No extraneous information, perfectly front-loaded.

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 simple zero-parameter list tool, the description covers purpose, result content, and auth. However, it lacks context on empty results, error cases, or response structure, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The mention of API key authentication is relevant but not a parameter. Baseline score of 4 for 0 parameters 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 specifies the verb 'List', the resource 'active TWAP orders', the protocol 'Pear Protocol', and additional detail about chunk execution and fill detail. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_open_orders' which likely handle non-TWAP 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?

The description mentions the prerequisite 'Requires PEAR_API_KEY' but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like 'get_open_orders' or 'cancel_twap_order'. Usage context is implied by the TWAP-specific focus.

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