binance_futures_open_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that only NEW and PARTIALLY_FILLED orders are returned, warns about potentially large datasets when querying all contracts, and details the information returned (price, quantity, margin usage, etc.). This goes well beyond the basic read-only nature implied by the tool name.

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 well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded with a concise function summary. While the output example is lengthy and contains some potentially redundant details, it adds value because there is no output schema. Overall, the structure is organized but the example could be trimmed.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description is highly complete: it explains the query scope, the returned order statuses, the returned details, margin analysis, and includes a comprehensive output example. This gives the agent enough context to select the tool correctly and understand what will be returned.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter (symbol), including examples and usage recommendations. The description adds only marginal value by mentioning contract filtering without supplying new semantic details beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score 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 clearly states it queries all unfilled futures orders (NEW and PARTIALLY_FILLED) with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly describing the order statuses and its focus on open orders, which is distinct from order history or cancellation tools.

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 clear '适用场景' section listing concrete use cases such as checking pending orders before batch cancellation and monitoring margin usage. It also advises specifying a contract to avoid large data volume, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools.

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