get_wallet_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 clarifies this returns both open and completed orders (a read-only lookup by nature) and enumerates the returned fields, but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, or any limits on result size.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the operation and scope front-loaded and the return contents summarized second.

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, the description usefully summarizes the return payload (action type, tokens, amounts, DEX, status). For a simple single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, though it omits ordering/pagination behavior.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'address' parameter is already documented as a bech32 Cardano address in the schema, so the description's mention of 'a Cardano wallet address' adds no new detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (swap orders) with scope narrowed to open and completed orders for a Cardano wallet address. It is largely distinguishable from get_pending_orders and get_dca_orders by scope, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 implied by the scope claim ('all swap orders... for a Cardano wallet address'), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and the closely related sibling get_pending_orders is not mentioned as an alternative.

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