alpha_create_market_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the order is placed 'with auto-matching' and specifies the return values, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only or mutating operation (implied mutation from 'Place'), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or side effects. The description is insufficient for a tool that likely executes financial transactions.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Place a market order') and includes key details (system, unit specification, return values). There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 tool with 8 parameters (6 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., mutation effects, auth needs), usage guidance, and fails to explain the purpose of parameters like 'position' or 'itemsPerPage'. The return values are listed but not explained, leaving the agent with significant gaps in understanding.

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 the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies that price, quantity, and slippage are in 'microunits' (already in schema descriptions) and mentions 'auto-matching' (not parameter-related). No additional parameter semantics, constraints, or interactions are explained.

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 action ('Place a market order') and the target system ('Alpha Arcade'), with specific mention of 'auto-matching' as a key feature. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'alpha_create_limit_order' by specifying 'market order', but doesn't explicitly contrast with other order-related tools like 'alpha_amend_order' or 'alpha_cancel_order'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when a market order is appropriate compared to limit orders (available via 'alpha_create_limit_order'), nor does it discuss prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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