place_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not explain that this is an irreversible financial mutation, whether authentication or a funded account is required, how the different order types behave, or what side effects or rate limits apply.

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 text is short but under-specified rather than concise — a three-word fragment leaves the agent with nothing actionable. Its only virtue is being front-loaded, but there is essentially no content to front-load.

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 high-stakes order-placement mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 22% parameter coverage, the definition is completely inadequate. An agent lacks the permission, order-type, and return-value context needed to call this safely.

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 only 22% across 9 parameters, and the description adds zero parameter meaning — it never explains symbol, category, side, orderType, qty, price, timeInForce, orderLinkId, or isLeverage. With 5 required params and 5 enums, the description fails entirely to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Place a new order'), so an agent instantly knows this creates an order rather than reading market data like the sibling get_* tools. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from cancel_order or to signal the trading semantics that separate it from its read-only siblings.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (authentication, margin/wallet balance), and no conditions under which an order should not be placed. The agent is left to infer everything from the name alone.

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