ig_create_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It offers only one warning, 'This may execute a leveraged trade,' but omits critical details like confirmation requirements, reversibility, or error handling. This is insufficient for a trade-executing tool.

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 two sentences contain no fluff, but the brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient completeness. Important details are missing, making it less a model of conciseness and more a minimal placeholder.

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?

This is a complex create operation with a nested object schema and no parameter documentation. The description gives no information about input structure, confirmation flow, or return values, making it nearly impossible for an agent to invoke correctly without external knowledge.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. The 'request' object is an open container with additionalProperties true, leaving the agent without any guidance on required fields or structure.

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 and resource, 'Create an OTC position,' which clearly states the tool's function. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like ig_update_position, ig_close_position, and ig_create_working_order by explicitly naming the position type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ig_create_working_order. It lacks any exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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