List Peer Cash orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context: orders are owned by a maker wallet and can be filtered to those needing attention. This goes beyond the annotations but doesn't fully describe default behavior (e.g., pagination, return format). No contradiction.

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, focused sentence that delivers the essence without excess. It is front-loaded with the action ('List') and includes optionality succinctly.

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?

For a simple listing tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains the core scoping and filtering, which is sufficient for initial understanding. The lack of return type details is acceptable given the simplicity, though a mention of output structure would make it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'owner' to 'maker wallet' and 'inFlight' to 'still need attention', providing meaning for two of three parameters. 'limit' is self-explanatory from the schema. This adds valuable semantics beyond raw parameter names.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('orders') with clear scope ('owned by a maker wallet'). It also mentions an optional filter ('that still need attention'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like peer_cash_order (singular). This fully clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 implies usage: use this to list orders for a maker wallet, optionally filtering by those needing attention. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or compare with alternatives (e.g., peer_cash_order for single order retrieval). There is clear context but no exclusions or alternative references.

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