binance_spot_open_orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that only NEW and PARTIALLY_FILLED orders are returned, executed/canceled orders are excluded, querying all may return large data, and it provides a detailed output example showing the exact response format including frozen funds. This is highly transparent.

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 headings and emojis, but it is quite long due to a detailed output example and 'suggested actions' section. The output example adds value for transparency, but the 'suggested actions' are somewhat extraneous for tool selection. It is appropriately front-loaded but not concise.

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?

Considering the simple tool (1 optional param, no annotations, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It explains filtering options, statuses, data volume considerations, use cases, and provides a full output example, giving the agent everything needed to use it correctly.

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 input schema already describes the single 'symbol' parameter with examples and usage tips (100% coverage). The description mentions filtering by pair or querying all, which repeats schema content but doesn't add new syntax or format details. Thus the basis is 3, as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '查询现货市场当前所有未成交的委托订单' (query all current unfilled orders in the spot market), identifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting it is for spot (现货) and includes only unexecuted orders, unlike order history or futures 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 explicit use cases (checking current orders, before batch cancel, monitoring progress, strategy adjustments) and recommends specifying a trading pair for efficiency. It also warns about large data volumes when querying all. However, it does not explicitly exclude when not to use it compared to futures tools, though the spot designation makes that implicit.

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