place_perp_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not state that this is a write/mutating operation requiring authenticated keys, whether it executes market vs limit by default (isMarket defaults true in schema), margin-mode prerequisites, or failure/irreversibility behavior. 'Without TP/SL' is the only behavioral signal.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scoping constraint ('without TP/SL') is included rather than buried. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the tool's complexity.

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 9-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits authentication/leverage prerequisites, the market-vs-limit default, and any differentiation from the many sibling order tools, leaving the agent without what it needs to invoke 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 78% across 9 params, so the schema already documents most fields (coin, size, price, isLong, apiKey, walletAddress, sessionPrivateKey). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 clear verb+resource+platform: 'Place a simple perp order on HyperLiquid.' The 'without TP/SL' clause hints at scope boundaries, distinguishing it from order types that attach stop-loss/take-profit. However, it does not disambiguate from close siblings like open_perp_position or execute_cross_perp/execute_isolated_perp, which an agent must distinguish to select correctly.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, despite many overlapping siblings (open_perp_position, execute_cross_perp, execute_isolated_perp, limit_buy/limit_sell). The phrase 'simple' implies a scope but does not tell the agent which conditions select this tool over those alternatives.

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