order_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool validates only and avoids POST calls, but the required confirmation text contradicts this by implying a real order may be placed. This inconsistency undermines 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 short with two sentences and a required confirmation line. However, the confirmation text is poorly integrated and creates confusion, making it less effective despite brevity.

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 no output schema, a complex nested request object, and no behavioral details, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct usage. Users cannot infer expected inputs, outputs, or error conditions.

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%, yet the description only mentions the confirmation parameter. The dryRun, request, and operation parameters are not explained, leaving their meaning and usage unclear.

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 states it validates order safety gates and never calls POST endpoints, indicating a read-only validation tool. However, it does not define what 'safety gates' are, and the confirmation text suggests a possible order execution, creating ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like pre_trade_check or order_preview. The only hint is that it never calls POST endpoints, implying safety, but no explicit comparison or usage conditions.

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