BinanceFutureCurrentAlgoOpenOrders

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It accurately states this is a read operation that 'retrieves a list', but adds no context about authentication, pagination, or response structure. It is not misleading but remains minimal.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope without unnecessary words.

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?

Given the low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns. It clearly states the scope (futures, USDⓈ-M) and the resource type (current algo open orders), making it sufficient for correct 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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter (recvWindow) with an inline description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema already provides, so it provides no extra value.

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 uses a specific verb ('retrieves') and identifies the resource as 'currently active algorithmic orders for USDⓈ-M Contracts in Binance Futures'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like BinanceSpotCurrentAlgoOpenOrders (spot) and BinanceFutureHistoricalAlgoOrder (historical).

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 provides clear context by specifying the market (USDⓈ-M futures), which implies when to use this tool versus spot or historical alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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