get_open_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 discloses the read-like nature via 'Get' and adds a meaningful limitation for Hyperliquid (native perps only), but it omits other behavioral details such as authentication, rate limits, pagination, or return format. The added constraint is useful but the disclosure is incomplete.

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 core purpose and followed by a specific caveat. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 single-parameter listing tool with full schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains scope and notes a key exchange-specific limitation, though it could mention return ordering or whether empty lists are possible.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter meaning. The description adds value by clarifying that the 'exchange' parameter includes Hyperliquid but only for native perps, with HIP-3 dexes requiring a CLI flag. This adds semantic context beyond the schema's list of exchange names.

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 ('Get') and resource ('all open/pending orders') scoped to an exchange. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_positions, but does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast with one.

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 implies usage through 'open/pending orders' and provides a Hyperliquid-specific constraint, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus related siblings such as get_positions or portfolio. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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