alpha_create_limit_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and delivers well. It discloses critical behavioral traits: collateral locking ('Locks ~0.957 ALGO collateral'), return value ('Returns escrowAppId'), and post-action requirement ('save it for cancel_order'). It doesn't mention error conditions or rate limits, but covers essential mutation behavior.

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?

Perfectly concise with three information-dense sentences: purpose statement, parameter unit explanation, and behavioral/post-action guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, and the most critical information (tool purpose) is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the action, units, collateral impact, and return value. It could be more complete by mentioning error cases or authorization requirements, but covers the essential context given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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%, providing detailed parameter documentation. The description adds value by explaining the microunit convention with examples (500000 = $0.50, 1000000 = 1 share) and mentioning collateral implications, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already covers thoroughly.

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 the specific action ('Place a limit order') on a specific resource ('Alpha Arcade prediction market'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'alpha_create_market_order' (different order type) and 'alpha_cancel_order' (different action). It precisely defines the tool's function without being tautological.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (placing limit orders with specific price/quantity units) and implicitly contrasts with 'alpha_create_market_order' by specifying 'limit order'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention all relevant alternatives like 'alpha_amend_order' for modifications.

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