trading_get_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'query details' without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it works for canceled orders, rate limits, or error responses. It adds no context beyond the parameter names.

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 focused sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains 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?

For a simple get-order tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but could be improved by mentioning return value characteristics (e.g., fields included) or prerequisites beyond the symbol.

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 mentions 'orderId or clientOrderId', which aligns with the optional parameters but does not add new meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Query single order details by orderId or clientOrderId', specifying the verb (query), resource (order details), and method (by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like trading_open_orders (lists all open orders) and trading_order_history (lists historical orders) by focusing on a single 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 implies usage when you have an order ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., trading_open_orders for multiple orders). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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