place_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: HTTP communication to local ControlServer, env var configuration, dry_run simulation, and additional approve_token requirement for live scope. It does not cover failure modes or idempotency, but the core behavioral traits are well explained.

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 five sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then communication method, then mode details. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy.

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, the description does not explain return values or error handling, which are important for a 9-parameter tool. It covers the key behavioral aspects but lacks integration context with other tools like cancel_order or whatif.

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 coverage is 67%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for dry_run default and approve_token requirement for live scope, but mostly restates schema info. It does not elaborate on symbol or qty semantics beyond the schema.

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 it places an order via the flox engine and is intended for manual hedges or operator-driven entry. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cancel_order by specifying use cases, though not explicitly contrasting with all siblings.

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 gives context: use for manual hedges or operator-driven order entry, and explains dry_run and live tier requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives like automated execution paths.

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