bitpin_get_order_by_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does deliver two concrete facts beyond the schema: authentication is required and the rate limit is 80/min. It stops short of noting behavior for an unknown or expired order ID, or whether the call is read-only, but the operational constraints given are genuinely useful.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then constraints. No filler and nothing an agent must read past to understand the 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?

For a one-parameter read lookup with full schema coverage this is nearly complete: purpose, ID format, auth, and rate limit are all present. Since there is no output schema, a brief indication of what 'details and status' includes would have closed the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single order_id parameter is fully described, including Persian-digit formatting. The description adds nothing beyond the schema beyond restating 'BitPin order ID', so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Get details and status'), a specific resource ('a single order'), and the identifying key ('by its BitPin order ID'). This implicitly separates it from the plural sibling bitpin_get_orders and from bitpin_get_fills, but it never names an alternative, so differentiation is only inferable.

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 phrase 'by its BitPin order ID' implies the precondition of already holding an order ID, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus bitpin_get_orders or bitpin_get_fills. The authentication requirement is stated, which is useful context but not usage direction.

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