coinbase_place_order

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and fully discloses behavioral traits: dryRun is hardcoded true, validates against risk limits, observe-only rejects, paper mode logs simulated fill, and never clicks the order form. No hidden 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 concise with no redundant sentences. However, it could be structured more clearly by separating the core purpose from behavioral details. Currently it reads as a block of text.

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 lack of output schema, parameter coverage, and the complexity of the tool (8 parameters, risk validation), the description is complete for behavioral understanding but leaves a significant gap in parameter semantics, which is critical for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter's meaning or usage beyond what the schema provides. It omits details on parameters like side, type, baseSize, etc., leaving the agent to infer from schema types and enums alone.

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's purpose as a dry-run scaffold that validates orders against risk limits without ever placing a real order. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like coinbase_confirm_live and coinbase_paper_ledger by emphasizing it never executes real trades.

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 explicit usage context: it is for validating would-be orders in a dry run mode and never places real orders. It implies that for actual order placement, alternative tools should be used, but does not name them explicitly.

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