Create a pending MetaTrader 5 buy/sell limit or stop order that fills when price reaches your target.
Place a pending limit/stop order that fills later when price reaches price.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sl | No | ||
| tp | No | ||
| kind | Yes | ||
| side | Yes | ||
| price | 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 full behavioral burden. It discloses the deferred-fill mechanic, which is genuinely the core trait, but says nothing about permission/margin requirements, whether the order can be modified or cancelled afterward, what happens to the optional sl/tp, or any rate limits.
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?
A single tightly-worded sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficiently sized, though concise to the point of under-specification for a 5-required-parameter tool.
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 an 8-parameter order-placement mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, one sentence is far too thin. An agent lacks enough to safely populate stop-loss/take-profit semantics or know the operational constraints.
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 8 parameters, and the description only illuminates `price` (the trigger level). Nothing explains `sl`/`tp` (presumably stop-loss/take-profit), `volume` units, `kind`'s limit-vs-stop behavior, or `comment`, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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?
States a specific verb ('Place') and resource ('pending limit/stop order') and even explains the fill trigger via `price`. It implicitly contrasts with a market order but never names `place_market_order` or any sibling, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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 when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternatives named. An agent is not told to prefer this over `place_market_order` or when a limit vs stop `kind` applies; only the basic 'fills later' notion is conveyed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.