get_pending_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: account aggregation across BIST/TEFAS/ABD in a single call and symbol-based filtering behavior, which are non-obvious and useful for invocation.

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?

A single compact sentence delivers both the core purpose and the conditional behavior with no filler. The most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter, read-only annotation, and the description covers both invocation modes and the kind of data returned (order IDs). No output schema is present, but the description sufficiently indicates return content.

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%, so the symbol property is already documented. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: empty means all accounts, populated means only that instrument, which directly informs how the agent should call the tool.

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 states a specific verb ('lists'), a clear resource ('pending orders'), and includes the distinguishing qualifier 'not yet realized' with order IDs. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_transactions and get_portfolio.

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 gives explicit conditional guidance: omit symbol to get all accounts in one call, provide symbol to filter to one instrument. It does not explicitly name an alternative for executed orders, but the sibling context makes that distinction inferable.

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