get_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or returns paginated results. The term 'pending orders' mildly implies a read operation, but this is not explicit, leaving uncertainty about 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 (6 words) and front-loaded, stating the core functionality immediately. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more descriptive without becoming wordy.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimal but covers the essential use case. It does not mention what happens when no symbol is provided (returns all pending), potential rate limits, or the structure of the response, but the output schema likely covers return details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining that the single optional parameter 'symbol' serves as an optional filter. This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's mere name and type. No other parameters exist, so coverage is adequate.

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 specifies 'Pending orders' which clearly indicates the resource (pending orders) and implies the action of retrieving them. The optional filter to a single symbol is explicitly stated. However, the verb (e.g., 'list' or 'retrieve') is implicit rather than explicit, and it does not differentiate from siblings like `get_history` (completed orders) or `get_positions` (open positions).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `get_history`, `get_positions`, or `get_quote`. It does not mention any prerequisites or constraints (e.g., requiring an active session) and does not indicate when to avoid using it.

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