get_open_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that these are public (not account-scoped) orders, which is meaningful context, but says nothing about pagination, depth, or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact Args block; no filler sentences. Efficient, though the Args list duplicates schema-level naming rather than adding semantics.

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 return values need not be explained. What is missing is routing context among the many order-listing siblings; otherwise the definition is minimally complete for a two-parameter read tool.

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, and it does: cointype is described with an example ('BTC') and markettype is flagged optional with an example ('USDT'). This is more than the bare schema provides, though it lacks accepted formats or default behavior.

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 public open buy/sell orders for a coin market'), and the word 'public' implicitly distinguishes it from the 'get_my_*' order tools. However, it never names an alternative explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance beyond the word 'public'. It does not say whether this returns the order book vs. your own orders, nor point to get_my_open_market_orders / get_my_open_limit_orders as the personal-order alternatives.

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