get_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 burden. It does disclose the return payload (status, amounts, execution progress), which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about authorization needs, pagination, empty-result behavior, or whether the call is read-only.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first states scope and the second states the return contents. Every clause carries information and the core action is front-loaded.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers what is fetched and what comes back, compensating for the absent output schema. The remaining gap is that it does not disambiguate itself from the other DCA/order-listing siblings.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema (bech32, 'addr1' prefix), so baseline is 3. The description only restates that the address identifies a wallet, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get all DCA orders') scoped to one wallet address, and it names the return contents. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like get_all_dca_orders or get_wallet_orders, so an agent must infer the scope difference from the parameter name.

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 phrase 'for a specific Cardano wallet address' implies the usage context (per-wallet lookup), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools such as get_all_dca_orders or get_pending_orders. Guidance is only implied.

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