get_order_fills

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a simple read action without mentioning side effects, rate limits, pagination, or the possibility of multiple fills per order. It does not contradict anything but remains minimal.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is entirely front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 tool is a simple read operation with two parameters and no output schema. The description adequately conveys the core intent, but lacks details about the response shape (e.g., whether multiple fills are returned), any temporal ordering, or special cases like partial fills. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 'orderId' and 'portfolioId' are fully documented. The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters relate or why both are required. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Get fills (executions) for an order' clearly states the specific action (get) and resource (fills for an order). The parenthetical clarifies the domain term 'fills'. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_order (which returns order details) and list_orders (which lists orders).

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention using get_order for order status or list_orders for order overview. While inferable from the name, the description itself offers no context or exclusions.

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