pro_get_open_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. However, it does explain the order status ENUM values, which adds some behavioral context beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations (none exist).

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 three sentences, front-loading the main purpose in the first sentence. It includes necessary filter details and status info without extraneous text. Could be slightly more streamlined, but overall efficient.

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 no output schema, the description explains return values (status enum) and filters. However, it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements (aside from JWT hint), and whether results are sorted. The '[PRIVATE]' tag is unclear and not explained. For a read-only tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by explicitly listing the order status ENUM values and clarifying that order_id returns full details. It also mentions the pair filter, but that is already in schema. The added enum explanation raises the score above the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'View', the resource 'open trading orders in PRO', and specifies what is returned (all active orders, pending/partially filled). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like pro_create_order or pro_cancel_order by being a read-only view.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pro_get_order_book, pro_get_balance). It mentions optional filters but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context. No exclusions or comparisons are given.

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