place_order

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 but offers minimal information. It states the tool places an order, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., order confirmation). This leaves significant gaps for a trading tool.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse, and every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 complexity of a trading order tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error cases), usage context, and expected outcomes, which are critical for safe and effective tool invocation in a financial trading environment.

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%, providing clear documentation for all 7 parameters, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The description doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions (e.g., 'price' is only for pending orders as noted in schema) or trading conventions, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Place') and resource ('a trading order in MetaTrader 4'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'close_position' or 'get_positions' beyond the basic verb, which would require more specific differentiation for a perfect score.

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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like account connection status, or contrast with sibling tools like 'close_position' for exiting trades or 'get_positions' for viewing open orders, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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