get_limit_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the critical non-mutating behavior ('does not execute any transactions') and free cost. It also explains return fields including error handling. It does not cover rate limits or auth prerequisites in depth, but the 'configured wallet' implication touches on context.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, Args bullet list, Returns list, and a helpful example. It is slightly verbose (the example could be trimmed), but every section serves a purpose and the information is front-loaded.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no explicit output schema, the description provides complete coverage: purpose, parameter details, return value structure, pagination behavior, and a usage example. It leaves little ambiguity for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% description coverage, but the Args section explains each of the 5 parameters with defaults, semantics, and optionality (e.g., order_status default active, wallet defaults to configured wallet). This fully compensates for the bare schema and adds meaning well beyond field titles.

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 opens with 'Get active or historical limit orders for a wallet', using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('limit orders') with clear scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_limit_order and cancel_limit_order by explicitly framing this as a read-only query operation.

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 statement 'This function is FREE to call and does not execute any transactions' provides clear context that it is safe to use for checking orders. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., when needing to create or cancel an order), so it stops short of a 5.

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