orders.status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns status, filled amount, remaining size, price, and market, implying it is a read-only check. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or that it does not modify state, which would further improve transparency.

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 four sentences, with the first sentence clearly stating the purpose. Every sentence adds value (usage guidance, return values, input source, constraint) without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has one simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter context, return values, and a constraint. An agent can use this tool correctly without additional information.

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?

The input schema already describes the order_id parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds context by explaining how to obtain the order_id ('from the response of the placing tool or from orders.list'), which goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 explicitly states the verb 'check' and the resource 'live state of a specific Polymarket limit order by its order_id', and distinguishes itself from siblings like orders.buy or orders.cancel by explaining its use case for tracking fill progress or verifying cancellation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: after orders.buy, orders.batch, or wta.bid to track fill progress, or to verify an orders.cancel call. It also mentions obtaining the order_id from the placing tool's response or from orders.list, and notes the constraint 'Only works in live mode'.

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