Open a buy or sell position at market price with optional stop loss, take profit, and comment. Validates and previews orders by default without sending.
Open a position at market price. DRY-RUN by default: validates and previews without sending.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sl | No | ||
| tp | No | ||
| side | Yes | ||
| symbol | Yes | ||
| volume | Yes | ||
| comment | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely important trait: DRY-RUN by default and validation/preview without sending. However, it never explains how to actually submit a live order (no dry-run toggle appears in the schema), nor auth, rate limits, or failure 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?
Two tight sentences with zero waste, and the most consequential fact (dry-run default) is front-loaded after the core action. Every clause 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 6-parameter order-placement tool with no annotations and no output schema, the dry-run disclosure is valuable but insufficient. Missing parameter semantics and any path to live execution leave meaningful gaps for an agent to call this 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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate but adds almost nothing. It does not explain sl/tp (stop-loss/take-profit abbreviations are ambiguous), volume units, symbol format, or the side enum, leaving the schema to carry all parameter meaning.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Open a position at market price'), which cleanly implies immediate execution and distinguishes it from the sibling place_pending_order. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so sibling differentiation is left implicit rather than stated.
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 phrase 'at market price' implicitly signals when to use this versus place_pending_order, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance. It never names the alternative tool or states conditions for choosing market versus pending execution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.