orbs_place_limit

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds meaningful context by noting the order is 'confirmation-gated' and 'executes only when output meets minimum amount', revealing conditional execution behavior not captured elsewhere.

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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

While the schema and annotations cover parameters and safety, the description lacks information about return values (e.g., order ID) and the confirmation flow. Given the tool's complexity and the existence of preparation/intent siblings, more context would be helpful.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 8 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. It adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already gives.

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 tool places a limit order via the Spot protocol, which is specific and action-oriented. It differentiates from swap/TWAP tools by mentioning 'limit order' and 'Spot protocol', but does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'orbs_place_order'.

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 for limit orders and mentions the execution condition, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like orbs_place_order or orbs_prepare_limit_intent. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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