Place spot order

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

The description contradicts the idempotentHint annotation. While the description explains that idempotencyKey makes the call idempotent ('reuse replays the original result', 'never double-execute'), the annotation sets idempotentHint to false. This is a serious inconsistency. Additionally, the description adds useful behavioral details (paper trading scope, confirm requirement), but the contradiction overwhelms any positive transparency.

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 comprehensive yet concise, with key warnings front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: purpose, parameter clarifications, idempotency behavior, scope, user confirmation, and disclaimer. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, required fields) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but referenced), the description covers the essential behavioral, security, and usage aspects. It could potentially mention return value structure, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, and the description adds critical context beyond the schema: coinId is a UCID not ticker, limitPrice and stopPrice requirements by order type, idempotencyKey uniqueness. This greatly aids correct parameter usage.

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 explicitly states 'Place a paper spot order' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like spot_quote and cancel_spot_order by specifying 'paper' and 'spot order', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 usage constraints: requires confirmation with user, requires trade:spot scope, and is for paper trading only. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or directly compare to siblings like spot_quote, though the context is sufficient.

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