Open orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scope by clarifying that only open and untriggered orders are returned and listing order types, but it does not cover pagination, filtering defaults, or authentication nuances beyond what the schema implies.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and scope. Nothing is wasted, and the order-type enumeration adds useful precision without bloating.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema and full schema description coverage, the definition is minimally adequate. It does not explain return shape, pagination, or how it differs from history-oriented siblings, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 100%, so all four optional parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only adds the general account context and does not explain how symbol, account_id, sub_account_id, or wallet_address interact, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear resource and scope: open and untriggered orders, including limits, stops, take-profits, and trailing stops, for an account. It is specific enough for an agent to know what is returned, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as strike_get_history.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'for an account' and the order-status scope, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like strike_get_history or account-level tools. It is adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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