get_order_matches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds the specific scoping to a DEX order but does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, or the implications of openWorldHint (e.g., match statuses changing over time).

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 filler or redundancy. It immediately communicates the core function, earning a top score for conciseness and front-loaded structure.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat underspecified. It does not mention the return structure or pagination behavior, though the schema hints at pagination via limit/cursor/offset. It is adequate for a simple query tool but lacks comprehensive context.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), including limit, cursor, offset, status, and order_hash. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 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 uses the specific verb 'get' and identifies a distinct resource ('matches') scoped to 'a specific DEX order'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_orders (which lists orders) and get_order (which retrieves a single order).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, though the phrase 'for a specific DEX order' implies it is for order-specific match retrieval. There are no exclusions or references to alternative tools, relying on the agent to infer context from the sibling list.

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