Order Detail

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, and the description restates two of them — redundant but harmless. The real added value is "Requires a wallet signature identity," an auth requirement not expressible in the annotations. It stops short of saying what happens on a missing/foreign order (not-found vs permission error).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result, then usage, then auth and safety. Every sentence carries distinct information; only the trailing "Read-only and idempotent" duplicates annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still characterizes the payload as a "full snapshot." Combined with auth and pre-mutation sequencing guidance, it covers what an agent needs to call it. Missing only failure/not-found behavior and whether the signing wallet must own the order.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter is already documented in the schema as an MObjectId with its purpose spelled out. The description only echoes "by `id`" and adds no format, ownership, or lookup semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a one-parameter tool whose schema does the work.

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 ("Read one order by `id`") plus the order-type scope it covers (NORMAL, FAST, EXTEND) and what it returns (full snapshot). It differentiates from the list tool implicitly via "one order," but never contrasts itself with the similarly-named `tronsave_internal_order_details`, which is the sibling most likely to be confused with it.

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?

Gives an explicit usage condition: use as source of truth before `tronsave_update_order`, `tronsave_sell_order_manual`, or `tronsave_cancel_order` to avoid stale state. That is concrete and actionable. It does not state when-not to use it or name the alternative read tools an agent could otherwise pick.

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