get_my_open_market_orders

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that these are the user's own orders, but does not disclose pagination, sorting, or what constitutes an 'open market order' vs limit order. It meets the lower bar set by annotations without adding much.

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 and front-loads the purpose, but it includes a Python-style Args block that duplicates schema structure rather than adding value. The content earns its place, but the formatting is tooling-specific and slightly awkward for an LLM consumer.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values. For a 2-param, read-only list tool, the essentials are present, but the lack of usage guidance relative to multiple sibling tools leaves an agent less able to choose correctly.

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 documents both parameters and specifies that markettype accepts values like AUD or USDT, which is useful. However, it doesn't clarify formats, valid ranges, or what happens if both filters are applied.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List your open market orders.' The scope is clear (current user, open, market type specifically). However, it doesn't distinguish itself from close siblings like get_open_orders or get_my_open_limit_orders, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The presence of several sibling tools (get_open_orders, get_my_open_limit_orders, get_readonly_market_open_orders) makes differentiation critical, but the description offers no routing help.

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