mb_get_order

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 states exactly what information is returned (fills, average price, fees, timestamps), giving insight into the tool's behavior, but it does not explicitly disclose read-only status, permissions, or rate limits. This is adequate but not exhaustive, meriting a 3.

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, information-dense sentence efficiently captures the tool's purpose and outputs with no redundancy. It is optimally concise.

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 straightforward with three fully described parameters and a clear statement of return contents. Although no output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the essential information for an agent to select and use the tool, though it lacks explicit error-handling or pagination info.

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 provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the description doesn't need to elaborate. It adds minimal parameter-specific meaning ('specific order' references orderId), maintaining 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource ('detailed information about a specific order') and enriches it with output specifics (executions, average price, fees, timestamps). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mb_list_orders or mb_get_trades.

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 conveys a clear use case: retrieving detailed information for a specific order rather than listing orders. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5 but provides clear context.

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