get_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the return type, the optional filters, valid status values, the limit default behavior, and that symbol is optional. It does not cover edge cases like empty results, pagination, or account scoping, but the core behavior is 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 compact, front-loaded, and uses a clear Args/list structure. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no filler or repetition beyond a helpful closing return statement.

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 simple three-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers all parameters and the return type. It lacks some context about account scope and relationship to sibling order tools, but the essential calling information is present.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section fully documents every parameter: status values ('open', 'closed', 'all'), limit as a maximum with default 50, and symbol as an optional filter. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare type and default information in the schema.

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 starts with a clear verb-plus-resource statement: 'Get a list of orders with optional filters.' The plural 'orders' and the filter language distinguish it from the singular get_order tool and the order-mutation siblings. It communicates exactly what the tool does.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_order, place_market_order, cancel_order, or other order-related siblings. It only implies a read-only listing use case through the verb 'get' and the plural resource. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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