get_asset_orders

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

While annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, the description's 'Get all DEX orders' is misleading because the schema's status parameter defaults to 'open', meaning not all statuses are returned by default. The description adds no context about this default behavior, pagination, or other nuances, so it fails to disclose an important behavioral trait.

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 with no wasted words. It clearly states the action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters, pagination, and a status filter, the description provides no guidance on these features. It omits that results are paginated, that a status filter exists with a default of 'open', and gives no hint about return structure. The 'all' phrasing also overpromises, making the description incomplete for a tool with 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add semantic information beyond the schema, but it also doesn't need to since every parameter has a description. No extra value is provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('DEX orders') with a clear scope ('involving a specific asset'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_orders (all orders) and get_address_orders (by address), 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 DEX orders filtered by asset, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_orders or get_orders_by_pair. There is no when-not or alternative guidance, so usage is only implied.

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