kraken_query_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. It safely implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Retrieve', but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, response size, or any side effects. It covers the basics but leaves out potentially important context.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence that delivers the core purpose without unnecessary verbosity. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 query tool with an output schema and fully described parameters, the description is adequate. It explains the purpose and the key informational element (execution status). No major gaps that would hinder an agent from selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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% with detailed descriptions for both parameters (txid and trades). The description adds no further parameter-level meaning; it only restates the resource. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('specific orders') with an added detail on the type of information ('execution status'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add/cancel/edit orders by establishing it as a query operation for individual orders.

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 explicitly implies the use case for fetching details of specific orders (as opposed to general history or modifications). It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the wording is clear enough for an agent to choose this over mutation tools when order status is needed.

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