getLiquidityMiningOrders

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It explains the tool's dual behavior (single vs list), visibility rules for Pending orders, default status filtering, and rate limit. This is comprehensive for a query tool with no destructive actions.

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, uses bullet points for clarity, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or redundant information. Front-loads the main purpose and then details behavior.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers both usage modes, filtering defaults, and rate limits. It could elaborate on pagination cursor usage but the mention of 'cursor-based pagination' suffices. Overall sufficiently complete for agent 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), but the description compensates by explaining how orderId/orderLinkId change behavior and that other parameters filter the list. It also notes the default status filter. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare parameter names in the schema.

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 'Query Liquidity Mining order history with cursor-based pagination' and 'serves as the single-order detail query'. It specifies the resource (Liquidity Mining orders) and distinguishes from numerous sibling tools by being specific to liquidity mining.

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 usage scenarios: pass orderId/orderLinkId for single order retrieval (with Pending orders visible) or omit for paginated list (Pending excluded). Also mentions default status filter and rate limit. While it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use this tool, the dual-mode description offers clear context.

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