List pending orders

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true. The description reinforces this with 'this server can place, modify and cancel nothing' and adds critical context about the replay source (list always empty, synthetic flag). This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not cover all possible behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, auth needs).

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, read-only assertion, and replay-specific behavior. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core action.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists. The description covers return fields and a key behavioral detail about replay sources, making it fully adequate for the low complexity of this tool.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description need not add parameter-level meaning. It correctly describes the output fields but not parameter semantics; baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full load.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'every pending order', and specifies the data included (type, volumes, trigger price). It differentiates from sibling tools which deal with symbols, quotes, bars, account, and positions, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 usage for retrieving pending orders and includes the read-only note, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like list_positions. It lacks mentions of conditions under which the tool should or should not be used, nor does it reference sibling tools for comparison.

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