getLPOrderList

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

No annotations provided; description fully covers behavior: returns paginated orders with status, amounts, fees, execution time, does not accept orderNo input but response includes it, and clarifies polling behavior.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value. Slightly wordy but not excessive.

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, no annotations, and 7 parameters, the description provides good context: purpose, usage pattern, expected response fields. Could include more param details but overall sufficient.

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 0%; description mentions 'optional filters' and specific filter usage (orderType, orderStatus) but does not explain all 7 parameters (e.g., tokenCode, days, limit, pageIndex, poolAddress). Partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 tool queries LP order history (stake and redeem) with optional filters, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling getLPPositionList for position details.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: call after executing stake/redeem, poll with orderStatus filter, do not use for positions. Includes agent hint with specific match by orderNo.

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