futures_all_orders

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions pagination and time filtering but fails to state ordering (e.g., reverse chronological), rate limits, or that symbol is required (though schema shows required). Insufficient for a retrieval tool.

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?

Single sentence covers key features concisely and is front-loaded. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., list features) without adding length.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should explain return format or content. It ignores order fields, pagination limit (max 1000), and ordering. Missing behavioral context that would help an agent understand paging and data structure.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds context about pagination and time filtering but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool retrieves all futures orders including history, with pagination and time filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like futures_get_order (single order) and futures_open_orders (current open orders) by emphasizing 'all' and 'history'.

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 for retrieving all orders with filters but does not explicitly compare to alternatives. Lacks guidance on when to use this versus futures_open_orders or futures_get_order, which are natural competitors.

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