create_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It warns that 'This can place a trade,' which signals irreversible financial action and confirms the need for the confirm flag. However, it does not explain what happens when confirm=false or describe any additional prerequisites or consequences.

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 sentences, each earning their place. The first states the core purpose, and the second flags the critical trade-execution behavior. No filler or redundant content.

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?

Given the complexity of a financial trade tool with an open-ended order object and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It lacks guidance on the structure of the order payload, what happens without confirm=true, or error/validation conditions. While an output schema exists, the input side is under-specified for an agent to invoke reliably.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'order' by labeling it an 'IG order payload' and clarifies the purpose of 'confirm' ('requires confirm=true'). However, the order object is open-ended with additionalProperties allowed, and the description does not detail its expected internal fields, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 precisely states the action ('Create an OTC position') and the input source ('from an IG order payload'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_working_order or close_position. It also clarifies that this is a direct trade placement, not a scheduled 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?

The description explicitly states 'requires confirm=true,' which is a key usage condition: the agent must set confirm to true to actually place the trade. It implies that this tool is for immediate OTC positioning rather than alternative order types, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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