Orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's 'this server cannot place, change or cancel orders' largely restates that, and it omits genuinely useful behavior such as how limit/cursor pagination behaves or whether results are scoped to the authenticated account.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose and field list front-loaded and the read-only constraint last. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical status list duplicates schema enum values rather than earning new information.

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?

With six optional parameters, no output schema, and a cursor-based pagination scheme, the description is thin on how to page through results and what the response envelope looks like. It does name the returned order fields, which partially covers the missing output schema, but pagination and default scoping remain undocumented.

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 coverage is 50%: cursor, market and symbol carry descriptions, while limit, status and oldestFirst do not. The description restates the status enum values already present in the schema rather than adding meaning (e.g. what 'closed' vs 'completed' means), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific resource (order history and status) and enumerates the returned fields (side, type, quantity, filled quantity, price, validity, brackets), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from near-neighbours like get_closed_trades or get_account_activity, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for viewing orders, and the read-only sentence clarifies scope. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_closed_trades for filled/closed activity, leaving the agent to guess among similar siblings.

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