get_order

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It conveys a read-only intent ('details of a single order') and discloses the returned fields (status, filed size, avg price, fee), which is helpful. It doesn't address error behavior, neither what happens for a nonexistentId id, but for a state read it explains the core behavior the agent needs. Placing a baseline 3 given zero annotation coverage. This adds some value beyond trivially implying 'get'.

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, short, front-loaded line with zero fluff. It leads with the target resource (the order + identifier) and inlines the return fields with expected

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?

A single-parameter read tool with Schema covers the 1 param requirement; description discloses the 4 return fields (status, size, avg price, fee) which compensates for lack of output schema. It does not mention error/not-found behavior). Given the simplicity and absence of output schema, this is nearly 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?

The schema is 100% undocumented (title coverage 0%), so the description carries the param burden. It clarifies numeric order id ('numeric order.decision.numeric order.decision.pullId') matching the integer type, which adds a little default correctness meaning. It does NOT explain the need to place order exists first or the possible value domain of and of the value domain now domain of 'orderId' range; only. schema) probably hasn't gone thereby by description alone., but the added value is small — baseline 3 for an instructional param.

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?

Clear verb+resource+scope: 'Details of one order by its numeric orderId.' It is an accessor for a single order, which distinguishes it from the listing siblings (get_open_orders, get_order_history, list_bot_orders), though it doesn't name them explicitly as alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this tool. It does not mention that this is for looking up a specific order as opposed to sibling getters like get_order_by_client_id or get_fills_by_order, nor does it note any prereq/prerequisite (e.g., order placed via orders via prepare_order). The agent must infer usage from the context alone.

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