futures_open_orders

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose whether this is a read operation (implied but not stated), what happens if no open orders exist, potential rate limits, or any side effects. The note about API key is minimal.

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 very short with two pieces of information (purpose and API key requirement). It is front-loaded and concise, though the parenthetical '(requires API key)' could be separated for clarity.

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 read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks context on return format or behavior when no orders match. Given sibling tools, more detail on 'open' status would improve completeness.

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?

There is one optional parameter 'symbol' with a schema description 'Filter by symbol (optional)'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'open futures orders', indicating a read operation on open orders. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'futures_all_orders' and 'futures_new_order', though it could be more explicit about what 'open' means (e.g., unfilled or active 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'futures_all_orders' (all orders) or 'futures_position_info'. The only usage note is 'requires API key', which is a prerequisite but not a usage guideline.

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