get_order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the lookup-by-hash behavior, which is consistent with the parameter schema, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as return format or potential error cases. No contradiction with annotations.

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, information-dense sentence. Every word contributes to clarity, with no filler or redundant statements.

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 simple read-only lookup with one well-documented parameter, full schema coverage, and strong annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description is complete enough. It names the resource, the action, and the identifier, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 is 100% for the only parameter ('order_hash' described as 'Order transaction hash'). The description's 'by its transaction hash' aligns with the schema but does not add any new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get details'), the specific resource ('a specific DEX order'), and the identifying mechanism ('by its transaction hash'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_orders (plural list) and get_order_matches.

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 for fetching a single order given a transaction hash, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_orders or get_orders_by_pair. The context is clear but no exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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