getOrderList

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true`, so the description does not need to reassert read-only behavior. It adds useful behavioral context about pagination, returned fields, and the polling pattern with `orderStatus=[1]`. This exceeds what annotations and schema alone convey.

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 front-loads the core purpose well, but it becomes repetitive: the agent hint duplicates the earlier statements about checking order status, polling after `executePurchase`/`executeRedeem`, and the two 'Do NOT' exclusions. Several sentences could be merged or removed without losing 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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the main use case, return payload contents, and polling behavior. However, invocation completeness is weakened by the lack of parameter-level semantics and the absence of output schema details, which matters because this tool returns a paginated list.

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 for the 7 undocumented parameters. It only vaguely calls them optional filters and gives one meaningful hint about `orderStatus=[1]` for polling; it does not explain `tradeType`, `direction`, `days`, `pageIndex`, or `tokenCode` semantics. The enum values `0`, `1`, `2` lack any meaning, leaving ambiguous invocation.

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 identifies the resource as the user's trade order history and the action as querying with optional filters. It also distinguishes the tool from alternatives by explicitly excluding token-price and asset-holding use cases, citing `getBizTokenPriceList` and `getAssetList`. This gives an agent precise scope beyond the tool name.

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?

It states explicit when-to-use scenarios: after executing a trade to confirm the result, when the user asks about trade history, and after `executePurchase` or `executeRedeem`. It also gives explicit when-not-to-use exclusions with named alternatives, which is exactly the required routing guidance.

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