List pending orders

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. Description adds that it lists 'all pending orders' and scope 'current account'. Additional detail on ordering or pagination would be helpful but not critical given the simplicity.

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?

Single sentence with only 9 words, extremely concise and front-loaded. No unnecessary information.

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 tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It clearly defines the scope and data returned. Minor improvement would be mentioning that it only lists pending, not historical orders, but that is clear from the title.

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?

No parameters in input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info because none exist. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description satisfactorily covers the tool's no-filter functionality.

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?

Clearly states verb 'list', resource 'pending orders', and scope 'for the current account'. Mentions examples like limit orders and entry orders, differentiating from sibling tools like etoro_get_user_trades.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., etoro_get_trade_history for executed orders). The description implies usage for pending orders but does not exclude other tools or provide context.

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