radiant_get_swap_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job disclosing the critical offset-based pagination behavior: orders can move in and out of the book, causing double-counting or missed orders, and advising a re-fetch from offset=0 for a fresh snapshot. It does not mention return format, but the key behavioral caveat is well surfaced.

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 tight and efficient: the primary purpose is stated in the first sentence, and the important pagination caveat is clearly flagged and explained in the next two. Every sentence earns its place and the structure supports quick comprehension.

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 read-style orderbook query with a fully documented schema, the description provides the core purpose and the one non-obvious behavioral trap (pagination inconsistency). It does not describe the return payload structure, but that is not strictly necessary given the tool's simplicity and the schema coverage.

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 documents all four parameters. The description does not add extra semantic detail about buy_ref/sell_ref/limit/offset beyond what is in the schema, landing at the baseline of 3.

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 'Get' and the resource 'open swap orders for a trading pair', with the added context 'on-chain DEX orderbook'. It is specific enough to distinguish from many sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast radiant_get_swap_history or other 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 description implies this is for viewing the current DEX orderbook and includes a pagination caveat, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over radiant_get_swap_history or when not to use it. The intended use is clear by context but not fully articulated.

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