getLiquidityMiningOrders

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description reveals important behavioral nuances: Pending orders are only visible in single-order queries, the default status filter excludes Pending but includes Success/Processing/Fail, other filters are ignored when orderId/orderLinkId is passed, and the rate limit is 10 req/s. This is rich, non-obvious behavior that materially affects invocation.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses bullets to clearly separate the two query modes and default behavior. The rate limit line adds essential operational context without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence contributes meaningful 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?

Given the lack of an output schema and the 9-parameter complexity, the description covers the critical invocation logic well: mode selection, status defaults, Pending visibility, pagination, and rate limiting. It does not describe the return shape or time units for startTime/endTime, but these are secondary for tool selection and basic invocation.

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 description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the semantics of orderId/orderLinkId (single-order retrieval, filters ignored), status (default behavior), and cursor (pagination). Remaining parameters like productId, orderType, startTime, and endTime are left to inference from names and schemas, but their types and enums reduce ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query'), a concrete resource ('Liquidity Mining order history'), and precisely distinguishes the two operation modes: cursor-based list and single-order detail query. It also implicitly differentiates this tool from siblings like getLiquidityMiningPositions and getLiquidityMiningProducts by stating it handles order history/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?

The description gives clear, explicit conditions for when to use each mode: pass orderId/orderLinkId alone for a single order, otherwise get a filtered paginated list. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use them, but the usage context is unambiguous enough for an agent to decide.

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