get_open_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's name and adds 'unfilled', without mentioning read-only behavior, return shape, ordering, pagination, or failure modes. It also conflicts with the schema by implying currency filtering is optional when currency is actually required.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It loses a point because the misleading 'optionally filtered' phrase introduces ambiguity and is not structurally necessary.

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 two-parameter list tool with full schema descriptions, the description is minimally viable. However, the optionality contradiction, lack of output format details, and absence of any behavioral context leave noticeable gaps for an agent deciding how to handle the response.

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 already documents both parameters with enums and descriptions, so the baseline is 3 due to high coverage. However, the description undermines this by claiming filtering by currency is optional, contradicting the schema's required field. This could mislead an agent into omitting a required parameter.

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 ('List'), identifies the resource ('open (unfilled) orders'), and clarifies scope ('all'). This makes it easily distinguishable from siblings like get_order_state, which targets a single order, and get_user_trades, which covers filled trades.

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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_positions, get_order_state, or get_user_trades. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing hints.

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