getTokenOrderList

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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds a useful rate limit of 10 req/s and hints that the tool accepts either orderId or orderLinkId as an identifier. It does not describe pagination behavior or response characteristics, but given the annotations, this is a reasonable baseline.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. The rate-limit note is valuable operational context and is cleanly separated. Every sentence earns its place, even though the overall definition is brief.

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 eight parameters, no output schema, and no schema-level parameter descriptions, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. Missing details include pagination semantics, time-bound behavior, order type meaning, and the distinction between orderId and orderLinkId. The annotation covers read-only safety, but the operational context remains thin.

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 prose description must compensate. It only explains the roles of orderLinkId and orderId, while leaving limit, cursor, startTime, endTime, and orderType without additional semantic context. The parameter names are partly self-explanatory, but the description does not sufficiently bridge the missing schema documentation for a tool with eight parameters.

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 a specific operation and resource: 'Query BYUSDT Token order history.' It also mentions querying by orderLinkId or orderId, which sharpens the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from closely related siblings like getOrderList or getOrderHistory, so it stops short of full distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with similar order/token tools. The only usage-related detail is the supported query keys, which is about parameter behavior rather than tool selection.

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