mb_list_all_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists orders but does not disclose behaviors such as pagination, filtering capability, return format, or whether it includes all statuses. This is a significant gap for a tool with many optional filters.

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 two concise, front-loaded sentences. Every word adds value: 'List orders across ALL trading pairs' states the action and scope, and 'complete picture of trading activity' explains the use case. There is no redundancy or 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?

The description adequately conveys the core function but lacks important context. It does not mention that the tool supports optional filters (size, status, symbol, has_executions) or describe the return structure, which is especially relevant given there is no output schema and no annotations. The schema covers parameters, but the description could be more complete about behavior and results.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain parameters like status, size, or has_executions. The schema already documents these adequately, so no penalty is applied, but there is no extra value from the description.

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 tool lists orders across ALL trading pairs for an account, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. The emphasis on 'ALL trading pairs' and 'complete picture' distinguishes it from the sibling tool mb_list_orders, which likely has a narrower scope.

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 getting a comprehensive view of trading activity, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mb_list_orders, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is only implied.

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