get_all_dca_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that results are filtered to currently active orders; it says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination or result limits, rate limiting, or whether this is a public read.

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 scope constraint is front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence ('Returns all currently active DCA orders on the platform') restates the first with no new information. For a one-line tool, half the text is redundant.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of return-shape information, and it omits pagination, ordering, and result-size behavior. For a simple zero-parameter list tool this is minimally adequate but leaves real 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. The description introduces no spurious or misleading parameter claims.

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 and resource ('Get all active DCA orders') plus the scope qualifier 'system-wide across all wallets', which implicitly separates it from get_dca_orders and get_wallet_orders. It does not name the sibling alternative explicitly, so sibling differentiation is inferred from scope wording rather than stated.

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 only implied by the scope phrase 'system-wide across all wallets' — an agent can infer this is the platform-wide view rather than the per-wallet one. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for the wallet-scoped case.

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