Pending orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces this by stating the server is read-only but adds little beyond what annotations already provide. It does clarify the scope of 'pending orders' versus executed ones, but this is largely a purpose clarification rather than new behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. The first sentence describes what the tool does, and the second adds usage context and limitations. Every word is purposeful with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with comprehensive annotations, the description covers what it returns, when to use it, and a key limitation. It gives a clear sense of the output fields without an output schema, making it complete for practical use.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema reflects this with 100% coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline score of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to add.

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 clearly states that the tool returns pending, unexecuted orders and specifies the key fields (type, limit/stop price, filled amount). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'not yet executed', differentiating from order history and positions.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this for what orders do I have open', providing a clear use case. It also notes what the tool cannot do (place, amend, cancel orders), offering a when-not-to-use boundary, though it doesn't name alternative tools directly.

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