bitflow_get_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add genuinely useful operational context: no API key needed, public endpoints with a 500 req/min rate limit, and mainnet-only availability. It stops short of describing error behavior (e.g., unknown order ID) or the shape of the returned details, which would have earned a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a clarifying restatement and then operational constraints. The closing earning_opportunities tip is tangential to fetching an order and slightly dilutes focus, keeping it from a 5.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what it returns conceptually (status and details), that no auth is required, rate limits, and network availability. The remaining gap is the absence of any hint about the returned fields or order states, but the tool's simplicity keeps this close to complete.

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% and the single orderId parameter is already documented in the schema as "The order ID to retrieve." The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance for the ID beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get details of a Bitflow Keeper order") and reinforces it with "status and details of a specific order." It is clearly distinguishable from mutating siblings like bitflow_create_order and bitflow_cancel_order, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from bitflow_get_keeper_user, which likely lists a user's orders.

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?

Usage is implied by the single required orderId — you call it when you already have an order ID and need its status. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to the alternative sibling (bitflow_get_keeper_user) for listing orders; the only tip redirects to an unrelated earning_opportunities tool.

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