trading_algo_orders

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It explains behavior for symbol omission but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, or what happens if both parameters are provided. There is no contradiction.

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, efficient and front-loaded with the key purpose. It earns its place with relevant usage nuance.

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 the description should explain return values. It mentions 'algo orders' and 'untriggered conditional orders' but does not describe the return format, fields, or behavior when symbol is provided without algoId.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for the symbol parameter (behavior when omitted) but does not add for algoId beyond what the schema provides.

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 that the tool queries algorithmic orders (conditional orders), which is a specific verb-resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like trading_open_orders or trading_get_order, which also query orders.

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 a usage nuance: omitting symbol returns all untriggered conditional orders. But it lacks guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., trading_open_orders) or what happens when both parameters are omitted.

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