Get incomplete order list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data (implying read-only), but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if no incomplete orders exist. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with account data.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second directs to external schema details. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though the external reference slightly reduces self-containment.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, account data access) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the scope ('incomplete orders') and points to schema details, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling or data freshness, leaving room for improvement.

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 has 100% description coverage, thoroughly documenting all 5 parameters with defaults and examples. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying filtering for 'incomplete orders', which aligns with the 'state' parameter but doesn't provide additional context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('incomplete orders under the current OKX account'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_orders_history' or 'get_trade_order', which likely retrieve different order types or historical data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_orders_history' or 'get_trade_order'. It mentions retrieving 'incomplete orders' but doesn't clarify if this includes partially filled orders or only live ones, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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