get_outcome_open_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds only the scope filter 'outcome markets only' but fails to describe return format, pagination, order status definitions, or any limitations or caveats. The minimal information leaves the agent guessing about 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, making it extremely concise and easy to parse.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the description omits return value details, which is critical since there is no output schema. With no annotations and no output schema, the agent needs more context about what constitutes an 'open order' and what data will be returned. The description is too sparse to be considered complete.

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 description mentions no parameters. The schema documents 'user' adequately but leaves 'network' as a bare enum with a default; the description does not explain what network controls or how parameters interact. With only 50% schema coverage, the description adds no compensating parameter context.

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 clearly states the action (get), the resource (a user's open orders), and the scope filter (outcome markets only). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_outcome_trades or get_outcome_positions, which deal with different concepts.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name implies open orders, but the description provides no context about order statuses, whether it is for pending vs filled orders, or how to choose between this and other order-related tools.

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