get_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the filtering behavior (pending/unfilled) and the query scope, but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or describe return format/pagination. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, which adds some transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that contains no redundant information. It earns its place by clearly and efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and scope.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description fully explains what the tool does and the query scope. While it does not explicitly describe the return format, that is implied by the tool name and description, making it sufficiently complete for this complexity.

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 coverage for the single parameter is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'for a specific wallet address', which aligns with the schema but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'trading orders', and the scope 'pending (unfilled) for a specific wallet address'. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_order, cancel_order, and get_positions.

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 provides clear context: it retrieves pending orders for a given address, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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