open_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List' without revealing whether this operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or has side effects. The agent has no indication of safety or side effects, which is a significant gap for a trading-related tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter tool, though it might be slightly under-specified when considering behavioral context.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and no parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not clarify the meaning of 'operator wallet' or distinguish from the similar-sounding sibling 'kalshi_open_orders'. It lacks any extra context that would help an agent decide when this tool is the right choice beyond the literal wording.

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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a description for a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 because there is nothing to explain. The description adds no parameter details, but that is unnecessary here.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('open orders') scoped to 'the operator wallet', which is clear and actionable. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'kalshi_open_orders', which likely serves a similar purpose, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like 'place_order', 'cancel_order', and 'get_positions' exist, but no context is given for selecting this tool. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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