pro_get_open_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context by defining 'open' orders as pending or partially filled and explaining the status ENUM. It also notes the [PRIVATE] nature of the tool, which is useful signal beyond annotations. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by optional-parameter behavior and a useful status enum. Every sentence adds relevant information, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only query tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what is returned, how to narrow by pair, and how to request a single order. It leaves minor ambiguity around combining pair and order_id, but the overall context is adequate for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter attributes are already fully documented. The description reinforces the semantics of pair and order_id, but adds limited new meaning beyond what the input schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'View open trading orders in PRO', and adds concrete detail about what counts as open (pending, partially filled). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like pro_get_trades and pro_get_order_book by focusing on user's active orders rather than trade history or the market order 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 description gives clear context on when to use the tool: to view open orders, optionally filtered by pair or order_id. It explains the behavioral branches for the optional parameters, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, which keeps it just 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.