get_readonly_market_open_orders

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call goes through 'the authenticated read-only API,' which usefully signals auth/output scope, but it does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or what the read-only tier excludes.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and short, and the docstring-style Args block efficiently documents both parameters without padding. Slightly awkward formatting, but nothing is wasted.

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 no explanation, and the read-only auth context is mentioned. However, given a crowded sibling set and a 0% schema coverage, the description should say more about how this differs from the other open-order tools.

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 burden and does a fair job: it names both parameters and gives concrete examples (BTC for cointype, AUD/USDT for markettype) and marks markettype optional. Only the precise ticker/format rules are left unspecified.

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 (List) plus resource (open market orders) and scopes it to the authenticated read-only API. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_open_orders or get_my_open_market_orders, leaving the read-only tier distinction implicit.

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 and no mention of alternatives, despite several siblings (get_open_orders, get_my_open_market_orders, get_readonly_market_completed_orders) that an agent must choose between. The 'read-only API' phrasing implies a context but never states the condition that selects this tool.

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