Open orders (view only)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that the server cannot place, modify, or cancel orders, which reinforces the read-only nature. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or whether the list is sorted, but with strong annotations the bar is lower and the description adds some context.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose and the read-only constraint are front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. The description is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 list tool with no required parameters and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, the fields returned, and the behavioral constraint. It does not describe the output format or pagination, but there is no output schema and the tool is simple; the missing details are minor for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.

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 currently open/working orders and enumerates the fields returned (type, amount, price, status, duration). It also explicitly distinguishes itself as a viewing tool, which differentiates it from any order-management siblings. The title 'Open orders (view only)' reinforces the purpose.

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 says it is strictly a viewing tool and that the server cannot place, modify, or cancel orders, which implies it should not be used for order management. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for placing/modifying/canceling orders, but among the listed siblings there are no order-management tools, so the exclusion is clear enough. The accountKey parameter description references get_account_summary for the default account list, providing some cross-tool guidance.

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