get_pending_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds behavioral context by specifying that the tool returns order IDs intended for cancellation, and clarifies the order status. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate the output. No contradictions.

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 front-loads the action and includes a relevant detail (order IDs for cancellation). No redundant wording or filler, earning a top score.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it lists pending orders and notes the inclusion of order IDs. It does not explain the full response format or edge cases (e.g., empty results), but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'symbol' with a clear description. The tool description adds no new parameter-level information beyond restating that it's a symbol. Since schema coverage is high, baseline is 3; the description does not meaningfully enrich the parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('orders for a symbol') and clarifies the status ('still waiting to execute'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_assets and cancel_order. Including the purpose ('for cancellation') further sharpens the tool's role.

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 the use case: when you need to see pending orders for a symbol and obtain their IDs for cancellation. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of X', but the mention of 'for cancellation' hints at the workflow with the sibling cancel_order, and the context is clear. No explicit exclusions, but adequate.

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