read_live_orders

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

The description adds the important behavioral detail that 'The snapshot updates about every 10 minutes,' which is valuable operational context not captured in annotations. However, with no annotations provided, the description doesn't address other key behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description partially compensates for missing annotations but leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that both earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important behavioral context about update frequency. There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and the nested parameter object has good descriptions, the description's main gaps are in usage guidance and top-level parameter explanation. For a tool that reads live data, the description provides basic purpose and update frequency but misses important context about when to use it, authentication needs, and how the 'model' parameter works. It's minimally adequate but with clear deficiencies.

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 description provides zero information about parameters, while the schema has 0% description coverage for the top-level 'model' parameter. The nested object 'ReadLiveOrdersRequest' has good parameter descriptions (start, end, projectId), but the description doesn't mention any parameters, explain what 'model' contains, or provide context about how to use the tool. With 0% schema coverage at the top level and no parameter information in the description, this is inadequate.

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 clearly states the verb 'read out' and resource 'orders of a live algorithm', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_live_algorithm' or 'read_live_portfolio' by focusing specifically on orders. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'read_backtest_orders' which might be a similar sibling operation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires a live algorithm to be running), doesn't specify when this should be used instead of other order-related tools, and offers no exclusion criteria. The only contextual information is the update frequency, which doesn't help with tool selection.

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