get_open_orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the unfilled-order state and the all-markets default when no filter is provided, but does not cover potential edge cases like empty results, rate limits, or authentication. It provides some transparency but leaves room for more detail.

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, front-loaded, and free of filler. Each sentence adds specific information: the definition and the filter behavior.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains what it returns and the key filter behavior. It lacks explicit mention of read-only nature or return format, but these are fairly obvious and the description is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'market' parameter. It explains that market is a filter and its omission yields all markets, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not specify the expected format (e.g., market ID or symbol), so it only partially compensates.

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 defines the tool as returning open orders that are placed but not yet filled, and adds the key behavior of optionally filtering by market. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_trades, which likely returns completed trades.

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?

It states that omitting the market filter returns open orders across every market, giving clear context on when to use the filter. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the behavior is clear enough for simple selection.

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