ultrade_market_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. 'Get open orders' suggests a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements (implied by wallet parameters), rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'open' means (e.g., pending, active). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise ('Get open orders'), which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it may be overly brief, risking under-specification for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations. Every word earns its place, but more context could improve clarity.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances like how 'open' is defined. For a financial tool with authentication parameters, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering by 'open' status and possibly by symbol (via the optional parameter). Since the schema handles parameter details, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, with no extra value from the description.

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 'Get open orders' clearly states the action (get) and resource (open orders), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'ultrade_market_orders' or 'ultrade_market_order_by_id'. It specifies the type of orders (open) but lacks detail on what constitutes 'open' in this context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'ultrade_market_orders' (which might fetch all orders) or 'ultrade_market_order_by_id'. The description implies filtering for open orders, but it doesn't clarify prerequisites, dependencies, or exclusions, leaving usage context unclear.

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