get-all-orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the returned status set and that this is a read-style history listing, but says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits/weight, or whether time-window restrictions apply to this endpoint.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with the use case in the second sentence. No filler or redundancy.

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-only listing tool with a fully documented schema but no annotations or output schema, the description covers scope and intent adequately. It could be more complete by noting pagination/return behavior, since no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema (limit defaults/max, orderId semantics, time ranges). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline expectation.

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 ('Get'), resource ('all orders'), and the enum of statuses returned (open, filled, cancelled) scoped to Binance USDⓈ-M Futures. The enumeration of statuses implicitly separates it from get-open-orders, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Useful for order history and auditing' gives an implied use case but no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance, e.g. when to pick this over query-order or get-open-orders. Sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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