futures_open_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions active orders and includes conditional orders, but does not disclose behavior like whether partially filled orders are included, or if pending orders are shown. It adds some useful context but is not comprehensive.

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 efficiently states the purpose. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes no unnecessary words.

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's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description provides the basic purpose. However, it does not mention what the return looks like or any pagination, which would be helpful but not critically missing. It is adequate but not thorough.

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% for a single optional parameter 'symbol'. The description in the schema already explains that omitting it gets all symbols. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond that, so a baseline 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 explicitly states it queries futures active open orders including conditional orders like stop loss, take profit, and trailing. The name 'futures_open_orders' is clarified with specifics, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'futures_all_orders' and 'futures_get_order'.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or provide context about its limitations compared to related tools like futures_all_orders.

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