get_open_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read and dynamic results. Description adds value by specifying it retrieves unfilled/partially filled orders and explains pagination parameters, but does not disclose other potential behaviors like sorting or data freshness.

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?

Front-loaded with one-sentence purpose followed by a clear, bullet-like parameter list. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 presence of output schema (not shown) and 7 parameters, the description covers purpose, parameters, and pagination. Could mention if results are sorted or if there are any rate limits, but overall adequate for a read-only query tool.

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 0%, so description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: category values (spot, linear, inverse, option), baseCoin usage context, orderId vs orderLinkId, and limit/cursor pagination details. Adds constraints like max 50 limit and default 20.

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?

Description clearly states 'Query unfilled or partially filled orders' with specific verb 'query' and resource 'orders'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_order_history (filled orders) and place_order (placing orders).

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?

Description implies tool is for open orders but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or context about when to use other tools like get_order_history for filled orders.

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