getRwaOrderList

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: exact-lookup precedence over filters, default time windows, the 180-day accessibility boundary, and a 10 req/s UID rate limit. This goes well beyond what the annotations or schema reveal.

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 and well-structured: one purpose sentence, a bolded rate-limit line, and two bulleted notes containing the key behavioral caveats. It is front-loaded and contains no 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?

For a read-only query tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the important invocation constraints: lookup precedence, pagination filters, time defaults, retention limit, and rate limit. It does not describe response shape or cursor mechanics, but the calling contract is sufficiently specified for 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the parameter-documentation burden. It meaningfully explains orderId/orderLinkId as exact-match keys, orderType/productId/time range as listing filters, and startTime/endTime defaults. It leaves limit and cursor implicit, but most parameters gain real semantic value beyond their raw types.

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 leads with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Query RWA order history.' It also immediately distinguishes the two primary modes—exact lookup by orderId/orderLinkId versus paginated listing with filters—so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools like getRwaPositionList, getRwaProductList, or getTokenOrderList.

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 explicit internal usage guidance: exact lookup is performed when orderId or orderLinkId is present, other filters are ignored in that mode, and paginated listing uses orderType/productId/time-range filters with documented defaults. It does not explicitly contrast alternatives, but the selection logic for this tool is unambiguous.

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