getOpenOrders

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by explaining the default openOnly behavior, the effect of openOnly=1, that openOnly is ignored when orderId or orderLinkId is used, the sorting by createdTime, and the filter parameter priority. These behavioral details are exactly what an agent needs to predict results correctly.

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 well-organized with a front-loaded purpose, clear behavior bullets, and a distinct account coverage section. There is minimal redundancy, and each section carries useful information without unnecessary 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?

The description covers core behavior, filter priority, account coverage, and the alternative endpoint. However, there is no output schema and no mention of pagination behavior or the meaning of orderFilter, which are relevant for a 10-parameter query tool. It is highly useful 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain openOnly, the priority of orderId/orderLinkId/symbol/baseCoin, and category usage for TradFi. However, it leaves cursor, settleCoin, orderFilter, and limit semantics mostly to the schema, so compensation is partial rather than complete.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Query unfilled or partially filled orders in real-time.' It also distinguishes itself from the order history endpoint, making it clear this is for current open orders. The scope is precise and the resource is identifiable even among many sibling tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool: 'To query older order records, please use the order history endpoint.' It also adds a post-restart caveat for Unified-account closed orders and provides category guidance via the agent hint. This is strong when-to-use versus when-to-use-alternative direction.

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