ig_create_working_order

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It mentions OTC, leveraged, and deferred opening, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose the confirmation flow (e.g., the 'confirm' and 'live_confirmation' parameters) or any side effects such as whether the order is placed immediately.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core purpose efficiently. However, it may be too sparse to fully inform the agent, but for conciseness it uses its space well.

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 tool has 3 parameters, a nested object, and an output schema, but the description does not explain the request structure, required fields, or the confirmation process. This lack of contextual detail leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool correctly.

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 mention any of the three parameters (confirm, request, live_confirmation). The 'request' object is open-ended (additionalProperties: true), so the agent has no guidance on constructing a valid request. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create an OTC working order that can open a leveraged position later.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'later' qualifier distinguishes it from immediate position tools like ig_create_position.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'can open a leveraged position later' implies deferred execution, but it does not explicitly contrast with ig_create_position or mention when not to use this tool. Usage must be inferred.

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