get_open_orders

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool uses the wallet address from WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY, which is a relevant config dependency. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any side effects, though as a 'get' operation it is likely read-only. The description adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and no redundant text. Every word serves a 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a single optional parameter with full schema description, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose and default behavior. However, the lack of any mention of return format or potential filters slightly reduces completeness.

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 has 100% coverage for the single optional parameter, and the description reiterates the same default behavior already in the schema. The description does not add new meaning beyond that, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource ('all open/pending orders') and scope ('for the configured wallet'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like place_limit_order and cancel_order, which are operations, and get_wallet_balances, which retrieves balances.

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 clear context that the tool uses the configured wallet by default, and the parameter description offers the alternative of providing an explicit wallet_address. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, though the tool's purpose is fairly unique among siblings.

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