fetchOpenOrders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens if no orders exist. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'open orders' means in this context, what data is returned, or how results are structured. For a data-fetching tool in a trading environment, more context about return values and behavior is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'accountName' is required (which is already in the schema). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained parameter interactions.

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 'fetch' and resource 'all open orders' with the context 'using a configured account', which makes the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetchOrder' or 'fetchClosedOrders', which would require more specific language about scope.

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 minimal guidance with 'using a configured account' but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetchOrder' (for a single order) or 'fetchClosedOrders'. No explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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