fetch_open_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real constraint: the call requires API credentials. It does not mention pagination, ordering, rate limits, or the shape of the returned order records, which is the remaining gap for a read tool.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the purpose leading and the auth prerequisite following. Nothing could be trimmed 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 zero-parameter read tool this covers the essentials, but with no output schema, no annotations, and an indistinguishable sibling (get_open_orders), the description should say more about what is returned and how it differs from that sibling.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No conflicting or undocumented inputs exist.

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 ('Get ... resting (open) orders') and clarifies the scope as open rather than historical or all orders. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling get_open_orders, leaving an agent unable to choose between the two without opening a schema.

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 sentence implies authenticated-account usage but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to the many alternatives (get_open_orders, fetch_orders, fetch_order, get_order_history). With a duplicate sibling present, this omission is costly.

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