get_open_orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states 'Salt-okunur, hiçbir emri değiştirmez/iptal etmez' (read-only, does not modify/cancel any orders), which is a key behavioral trait. It also adds context about the source of 'locked' balance and included order types (OCO/stop-loss/limit), enhancing transparency. However, it does not cover all potential behaviors like rate limits or error handling, but the provided info is valuable.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then adds necessary context in parentheses. It avoids unnecessary fluff and earns its place with the alternative distinction and read-only note. While a bit long due to parentheticals, it remains compact and structured.

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?

The tool is a read-only query with one required parameter, so the description's detail on scope and read-only nature is adequate for basic usage. However, since there is no output schema, it does not describe the return format or any potential error/edge-case behavior. The mention of 'locked' balance adds some context, but overall it leaves gaps about what the response contains.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanations, but it provides none. It does not mention 'account_id', 'request_id', or 'idempotency_key' at all, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill these fields. Since the tool has three parameters, the omission is significant.

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 opens with a specific verb 'döner' (returns) and resource 'Borsadaki (Binance) GERÇEK açık emirleri' (real open orders on Binance), clearly stating the tool's function. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_pending_orders' by clarifying this is not the internal approval queue but actual exchange orders, eliminating ambiguity.

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 references the alternative tool 'get_pending_orders' and contrasts the two: this tool returns real exchange orders, not the internal approval queue. This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the sibling, covering both when and when-not scenarios.

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