hl_open_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of revealing behavior. It merely states 'Open resting orders for a user' without indicating whether this is a read-only operation, what data is returned, or any limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core function. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices useful detail, though conciseness itself is appropriate for such a simple tool.

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 an output schema, the description does not cover input semantics, usage distinction from similar tools, or behavioral expectations. For a tool with two parameters and several sibling tools, the minimal description leaves too many gaps for reliable invocation.

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 defines 'user' and 'dex' with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'for a user' but does not explain the 'dex' parameter at all. With zero schema descriptions and no parameter details in the description, the agent has essentially no semantic information beyond parameter names.

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 states the tool's purpose: to retrieve open resting orders for a user. The phrase 'Open resting orders' is somewhat ambiguous (could be read as a noun phrase), but the intent is clear. It does not differentiate from siblings like hl_frontend_open_orders, which likely serves a similar function, so it loses a point.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hl_frontend_open_orders or hl_order_status_by_oid. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to guess.

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