preview_order

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the key trait: it sends nothing. It also says the response includes planned child orders, policy decisions, fee bound, and whether human approval is required, though it omits auth or rate-limit details.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then gives compact parameter hints. Every sentence carries useful information, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, and the description does state the high-level preview contents. Still, for a complex 12-parameter trading tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves substantial parameter and interaction detail unaddressed.

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 0% across 12 parameters, and the description only explains side values, algo values, and that size is in base units. It adds important enum and unit information missing from the schema, but leaves nine parameters such as slices, limit_px, pov_rate, duration_s, and max_slippage_bps undocumented beyond their titles.

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 uses a specific verb phrase, 'Dry run,' with the resource 'order,' and explicitly lists the preview outputs: planned child orders, policy decisions, fee bound, and human-approval need. It distinguishes itself from submit_order by stating 'Sends nothing,' so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 'Dry run' framing and 'Sends nothing' clearly imply this is the safe preview path to use before submit_order. However, the description does not explicitly name submit_order as the alternative or state any conditions for when not to use the preview.

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