get_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'list orders', which implies a read-only operation, and mentions filtering and pagination parameters. However, it does not disclose authorization needs, rate limits, data freshness, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic functionality.

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 concise with a one-line summary followed by a parameter list. Every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Minor improvement could merge the summary with the parameter list or remove redundancy, but it's efficient overall.

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 an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description is fairly complete. It explains all parameters and provides examples. However, it lacks guidance on ordering, total count, error handling, or typical limits, leaving some gaps.

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 0% schema coverage, the description effectively explains all five parameters: 'pair' includes an example ('BTC-AED'), 'status' lists the enum values, 'limit' specifies max (1000), and 'from_date' gives format (YYYY-MM-DD). It compensates well for the schema gap, though it doesn't clarify default behaviors or inclusivity of date filter.

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 clearly states the action ('list orders') and target resource ('for a trading pair'), with optional filtering by status. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'get_order' (single order) or 'cancel_order', though it does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools.

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 description implies usage (when needing a list of orders for a pair), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_order' for a single order, 'get_order_book' for market depth). No exclusions or context are provided.

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