List open orders

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description still adds genuinely new operational context: the trade:read scope requirement, a concrete rate limit (600/min shared across the default group), and the reason it is cheap (reads stored records rather than hitting a venue). This substantially exceeds what the annotations convey.

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?

Front-loaded with what it returns, then scope/alternative, then auth, then rate limit plus rationale. Sentences are short and each carries information; only 'Ten a second' is a restatement of the 600/min figure, a trivial redundancy.

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-param tool with no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does partially ('each one carrying which bot placed it', account-scoped book view). Auth and rate-limit context are supplied, but pagination or fuller field composition of the returned orders is not described.

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?

With zero parameters the baseline is 4, and the schema is fully covered (empty object). The description reinforces this ('takes no filters'), clarifying that filtering must happen client-side, which is useful added meaning for a no-arg tool even though there is nothing more to document.

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 (list every still-tradeable order across the account) with precise scope: bots and manual alike, bot attribution included. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming list_orders as the filtering variant and by calling itself 'the account's own view of the book', which separates it from the venue-side list_venue_open_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?

Explicitly declares the key behavioral constraint ('takes no filters: filter the result yourself') and routes the agent to the alternative ('use list_orders, which does filter'), with the selecting condition spelled out. Prerequisites are also stated via the required trade:read scope.

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