get_orders_by_pair

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds the 'order book' concept and pair-specific scope, but does not disclose additional behaviors like default status filtering or pagination (though these are visible in the schema). This is adequate but not rich.

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 that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or 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 read-only, list-style tool with a full parameter schema and safe annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It conveys the core functionality and scope, though it omits explicit details about the response shape (since there is no output schema). Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only loosely references the pair via 'specific trading pair', which maps to asset1/asset2 already described.

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'), the resource ('order book'), and the scope ('specific trading pair on the DEX'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_asset_orders (single asset) or get_orders (general) by emphasizing pair-specificity.

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 when to use the tool (when you need the order book for a specific trading pair) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No guidance is given for when to prefer another order-related tool such as get_asset_orders or get_address_orders.

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