orbs_place_order

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

Annotations already indicate a state-changing, destructive operation. The description adds meaningful context: it is gasless, confirmation-gated, and order type is determined by parameters. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate 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 two sentences long and dense with information. It front-loads the primary purpose and then efficiently explains order-type determination. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complex 13-parameter tool, the description covers order type logic and confirmation behavior. It does not describe the response format or potential failure modes, but given the schema completeness and the fact that annotations cover safety profile, this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant cross-parameter meaning by mapping parameter conditions to order types (e.g., outputLimit > 0 for limit, fromMaxAmount > fromAmount + epoch for TWAP). This synthesis is not apparent from individual schema descriptions.

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 gasless order via Spot protocol, listing supported order types. It distinguishes itself from specialized siblings like orbs_place_twap and orbs_place_limit by presenting itself as the general-purpose order tool with parameter-driven order type selection.

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 provides clear context by explaining how to configure each order type through parameter combinations. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to prefer this over specialized versions, but the parameter guidance effectively tells the agent how to use the tool for various scenarios.

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