trading_open_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully explain behavior. It only mentions 'current pending orders' without clarifying scope (e.g., user/account-specific), data completeness (e.g., are partially filled orders included?), or any read-only guarantees. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 concise but lacks depth. It is front-loaded with the main action, but important details like behavior and scope are missing, making it slightly under-specified.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by specifying return type, scope, and any limitations. It only states the basic function, leaving gaps in understanding what the agent will 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter already described. The description adds that the symbol filter is optional, which is already implied by the schema having no required fields. No additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 all current open orders with an optional symbol filter. It uses specific verb+resource ('查询当前所有挂单') and distinguishes from sibling tools that handle historical orders or single order retrieval.

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 viewing current open orders but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like trading_order_history or trading_get_order. No when-not to use or alternatives mentioned.

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