futopt_query_order

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does reveal caching behavior through force_query ('True to force refresh, False to use cache'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, or mention potential stale data, pagination, or auth requirements, leaving gaps.

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 highly concise and well-structured, with a clear one-line purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler.

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 that there is an output schema, the return value is already defined. The description covers purpose, parameters, and caching behavior. However, it omits the full product_type enum values (2 and 3) and provides no usage context or prerequisites (e.g., login required). These are minor but notable gaps, making it slightly incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides one-line explanations for all three parameters, which adds meaning. However, the product_type mapping is incomplete (only 0 and 1 are listed while the schema enum includes 0-3), and account_id is minimally described as 'Account ID.' It helps but does not fully compensate for schema gaps.

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 opens with 'Query futures/options orders,' which is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like futopt_query_match (queries matches) and futopt_new_order (creates orders). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, such as 'for matches, use futopt_query_match.' Usage must be inferred from the name and context, leaving the agent without clear decision support.

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