limit_sell

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one real behavioral trait ('Auto-classifies as TP or SL'), which is valuable, but omits that this is an authenticated mutation requiring apiKey/sessionPrivateKey, whether the order can be cancelled (direct_cancel_order exists), and any irreversibility or permission concerns.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action precedes the TP/SL note. Efficiency is high, though the second sentence is a fragment that could have carried more context.

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 7-required-parameter authenticated write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It never mentions the credential requirements, execution semantics, or what happens after placement, leaving significant gaps an agent would need to fill.

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 100%, so all 7 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces the triggerPrice concept ('price reaches target') but adds no format, unit, or ordering semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('Create a limit sell order') plus the trigger condition, so an agent can distinguish it from limit_buy or sell_token. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling for differentiation, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 explains what a limit sell does mechanically, not when an agent should choose it over sibling tools like sell_token, limit_buy, or managed_sell. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no routing guidance are given.

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