SMX: check an order for unclaimed fills

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds material context beyond them: cancelling an unclaimed fill would forfeit it on the current contracts, the call returns claim calls to make, state is read at call time and provided as-is, and it is free with no key. This is exactly the operational safety detail an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger and the key outcome, and every sentence carries substance. It is slightly repetitive — 'Read-only; never cancels or claims' is restated by 'Read-only check of on-chain state at the time of the call' — which keeps it from a top score.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains what comes back (safeToCancel=false plus claim calls), why it matters, the cost model, and the freshness caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are documented there ('Market id from smx_list_markets', 'Your order ids on that market's order book'). The description adds no syntax, format, or batching detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'check each order for unclaimed fills' before cancelling. The scope (SMX testnet orders in your own wallet) and the exact output condition (safeToCancel=false) make it unambiguous and clearly distinct from the market/methodology siblings.

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?

Gives a clear trigger — do this before cancelling orders from your own wallet — and reinforces it with 'Verify before acting.' It doesn't name any alternative tool or an explicit when-not case, but no sibling in the list plausibly competes for this job.

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