bitpin_get_orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries real weight and does deliver two concrete behavioral facts: rate limit of 80/min and an authentication requirement. It omits return ordering and whether the 7-day window can be widened, so it is strong but not complete.

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 scope, then filters, then operational constraints. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 nine-parameter read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, filter surface, rate limit and auth. Pagination is delegated to the documented limit/offset parameters, which is acceptable.

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 nine parameters are already documented. The description's mention of symbol, state, side and date range only restates fields the schema explains more fully (including Persian aliases and comma-separated states), so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource plus an explicit scope: active and closed orders from the last 7 days on BitPin. That scope implicitly separates it from bitpin_get_order_by_id (single order) and bitpin_get_fills (executions), but no sibling is named outright.

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?

Lists the available filters (symbol, state, side, date range) which implies how the tool is typically used, but never says when to reach for this versus bitpin_get_order_by_id or bitpin_cancel_order-style lookups, nor any prerequisite sequencing.

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