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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates the tool returns step-by-step explanations, but does not disclose return format, depth, limitations, or whether it performs any side effects. For a read-only retrieval tool this is lower risk, but the description remains sparse.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate for a simple one-parameter tool, though it leaves out useful routing context.

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?

The description is minimally complete: it says what the tool returns and the schema documents the input. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could do more to clarify scope, return format, and how it differs from sibling documentation tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single workflow parameter, including fuzzy matching and example inputs. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get step-by-step explanation of common Orderly development workflows.' It clearly conveys the tool returns explanatory workflow guidance, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as search_orderly_docs or get_component_guide.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_orderly_docs, get_component_guide, or the various API info tools. The description implies it is for workflow explanations, but an agent must infer the selection criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not say that this is a pure read, what the response looks like (no output schema exists), how unknown endpoints are handled, or what happens when `endpoint` is omitted. Only the implicit 'Get' signals non-destructiveness.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy.

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?

The tool is simple, but against a crowded sibling namespace of similarly named API-info tools and with no output schema, the description should clarify scope and return shape. Neither the optional-endpoint behavior nor the 'auth' mode is addressed.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the 'auth' type value. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieving information about Orderly REST API endpoints or WebSocket streams. However, it does not distinguish itself from the four sibling API-info tools (get_indexer_api_info, get_orderly_one_api_info, get_public_info_api_info, get_strategy_vault_api_info), so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which API-info tool to pick.

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 on when to use this versus the sibling *api_info tools, and no explanation of when to supply `endpoint` versus omitting it. The word 'or' hints at two modes but leaves the selection entirely to inference.

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

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 implies a read-only lookup but says nothing about what the guide actually contains (code samples, imports, SDK versions), whether results are static or versioned, or how large the output is. For a guidance-generation tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves significant behavior undisclosed.

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 efficient sentence with the key concept (React components via Orderly SDK) front-loaded. Nothing is padded, though it is arguably too terse given the missing behavioral detail.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must explain the nature of the returned guidance and it only partially does. Parameter documentation is solid, but an agent cannot predict what it will receive back or how the 'complexity' setting alters the result.

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 100% and both parameters are documented with examples and a default, so the schema does the work. The description adds no additional meaning about the component identifier or what complexity levels change in the returned guide, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get guidance on building React UI components using Orderly SDK'. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_api_info or get_contract_addresses. It does not explicitly contrast with search_orderly_docs, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus search_orderly_docs or explain_workflow, both of which could plausibly surface similar guidance. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no stated conditions that select this tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format details.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The key operation and scope are immediately clear.

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 lookup tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return subject ('smart contract addresses'). It could say more about the return structure or contract type filtering, but the schema handles parameter details.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the chain, network, and contractType parameters. The description adds only the phrase 'specific chains,' which aligns with the chain parameter but does not add meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get smart contract addresses for Orderly on specific chains.' It clearly identifies the operation and scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as documentation or API info 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?

The description implies the tool is used when contract addresses are needed for a specific chain, but it does not state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. There are no explicit usage conditions or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get information' reasonably implies a read-only, low-risk metadata lookup, but the description does not confirm retrieval semantics, describe the shape of what is returned, or note any preconditions. For a low-risk info tool this is adequate but thin.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the resource and its content areas with no filler. The trailing parenthetical is slightly awkward but earns its place by pointing at the endpoint parameter.

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 two-optional-parameter metadata tool this covers the core purpose and schema is fully documented. However, with no output schema, the description does not say what 'information' looks like (endpoint listing vs schema docs), leaving the agent to infer the return shape.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are well documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'endpoint search' is a valid path and that rankings are accessible this way, but adds no syntax or filterable-field detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: retrieves information about the Orderly Indexer API. It names the specific API surface (trading metrics, account events, trades, volume statistics), which distinguishes it from sibling API-info tools like get_orderly_one_api_info or get_public_info_api_info. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 parenthetical hint that rankings endpoints are reachable 'via endpoint search' implies how to broaden queries, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this tool over get_api_info or search_orderly_docs. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only information lookup but does not disclose return format, source freshness, authentication needs, or how the optional category/endpoint filters affect the result, leaving key behavioral traits undocumented.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its terseness leaves no structure for explaining the optional filtering behavior.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain what kind of API information is returned and how the filters shape it. The input schema covers parameter descriptions, but the overall behavior and return expectations remain largely unstated.

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 100%, so the two optional parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which makes the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get information about Orderly One API'. It also scopes the domain to 'DEX creation, graduation, and management', which helps distinguish it from generic siblings like get_api_info, though it does not explicitly compare itself to those alternatives.

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 phrase 'for DEX creation, graduation, and management' gives clear usage context, telling the agent when this API-info tool is relevant. It does not name alternatives or exclusion cases among the many sibling info/guide tools, so it falls 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.

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the endpoint requires zero auth, is a single POST route, is dispatched by a type field, and that a lookup returns params, response fields, example, weight, and freshness. It omits rate limits and whether calling with no arguments returns an index of all 24 types.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the identifying facts (API name, endpoint, auth model) before the enumeration of coverage. 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?

For a two-optional-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool is, how it is invoked, and what a query returns. The remaining gap is what happens when no parameters are supplied.

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 coverage is 100%, so both optional parameters are already documented, including the category/queryType mutual exclusion. The description adds the overall count (24 types) and sample type values, but nothing about format or what an empty call yields beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get information about the Orderly Public Info API') and pins down the concrete surface: a zero-auth single endpoint, POST /v1/public/query, driven by a `type` field with 24 query types. The explicit API name also separates it from siblings like get_indexer_api_info and get_orderly_one_api_info.

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 implies this is the lookup for public market/account/platform data and lists example query types, but it never states when to pick it over the sibling API-info tools or when not to use it. The category-vs-queryType choice is handled in the schema rather than the description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only information lookup but does not state whether authentication is required, whether it returns endpoint documentation or metadata, or what happens when no category/endpoint is supplied.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, though it omits useful context that could be added without bloat.

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 low-complexity, two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the domain but leaves gaps around when to choose it over sibling tools and what the response represents. It is minimally adequate but not complete enough to fully guide selection.

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 100%, with both parameters fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get information about Orderly Strategy Vault API') and adds the domain scope ('yield optimization, strategy providers, and liquidity providers'). It distinguishes itself from generic siblings like get_api_info by naming the Strategy Vault, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_api_info or other domain-specific info 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_api_info, get_indexer_api_info, or search_orderly_docs. The domain hint implies usage, but no explicit conditions or exclusions are provided.

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

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 doesn't disclose what a result looks like (snippets, URLs, ranked sections), how ranking works, or any rate/size constraints; the only hint of behavior is the description of 'limit' and 'detail' inside the schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the purpose is stated immediately. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing usage and output context rather than being a virtue in itself.

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 search tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should say what comes back and when to prefer it over siblings. Neither is covered, leaving the agent to guess at result shape and alternative routing.

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 100%, so the schema already explains query, limit, scope, and detail with examples and enum semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is acceptable at baseline 3 but no better.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Orderly Network documentation'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_api_info, get_component_guide, or explain_workflow, which plausibly overlap with documentation lookup.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no routing to or away from the eight sibling tools that serve adjacent information needs. The schema's scope description implies some selection logic (auto/docs/sdk), but the description itself offers none.

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