futures_get_order

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 only states 'query' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any permission requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. For a query tool, additional transparency is needed.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no wasted words and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 the tool is a simple query, the description is adequate but could be improved by mentioning the output structure (e.g., returns full order details) since no output schema is provided. This would help agents understand what information they receive.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond stating the identification methods (order ID or client ID), which is already in the schema. Baseline score of 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 states the tool queries futures order status by order ID or client ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like futures_open_orders and futures_all_orders by specifying the lookup method.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description omits comparison with sibling tools like futures_open_orders for listing orders, though the name and description imply usage when a specific order ID is known.

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