get_order_book

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

The annotation openWorldHint is present, but the description adds valuable behavioral scoping: it returns only today's orders and includes specific statuses and data fields. It doesn't disclose potential side effects, but the 'get' verb implies a read-only operation, which is consistent.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and output. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary elaboration.

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, parameterless tool, the description covers all essential aspects: time range, order statuses, and displayed fields. It doesn't specify return format or pagination, but given the absence of an output schema, this is adequate.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter details because there are none, and it remains clear what the tool does.

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 the verb 'Get' with a specific resource 'all orders for today' and lists the statuses (pending, executed, rejected) and fields (status, prices, quantities). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_positions or get_trade_book.

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 temporal scope 'for today' provides some usage context, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_order_details or get_trade_book. No exclusion or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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