get_address_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds 'DEX orders' domain context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like default ordering, pagination behavior, or handling of invalid addresses. It neither contradicts nor enriches annotations significantly.

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 concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and contains no redundant information.

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 list tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and full annotations/schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It provides the essential context (address-specific DEX orders) and relies on the schema for parameter details. The lack of explicit return-format information is acceptable given the 'Get' verb and typical list semantics, but a note on pagination could have made it fully complete.

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 have explicit descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already fully documents the parameters, meeting the baseline.

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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'all DEX orders', and the scope 'placed by a specific address'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_orders (all orders) and get_asset_orders (by asset), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when you need orders for a specific address, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferred from the address scope rather than directly stated.

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