edgex_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. It only says 'Get active/pending orders,' implying a read-only operation but does not disclose any further behavioral details such as pagination, response structure, or how the optional symbol filter behaves. The agent is left with minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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 concise sentence: 'Get active/pending orders.' It uses no redundant words, front-loads the verb, and is immediately clear. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out critical context. It does not explain what the response looks like, whether the symbol filter is required or how it affects results, or any edge cases like empty order lists. For a tool with only one optional parameter, the description is too incomplete to fully guide an agent.

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 documents the optional 'symbol' parameter with the description 'Filter by symbol', providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is adequate for a simple optional filter. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 'Get' and the resource 'active/pending orders' with a specific scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_order_status and get_positions by focusing on orders with active/pending statuses, though it does not explicitly compare to those alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_order_status or get_positions. There are no mentions of alternative tools, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool should be preferred, leaving the agent without clear usage context.

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