futopt_new_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions placing an order and returning a confirmation, but it does not state that this is a live, likely irreversible trade order, nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication, account validity, or potential failure modes. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with real-world 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?

The description is well-structured with a one-sentence purpose followed by an Args list and Returns line. It is appropriately sized for a 13-parameter tool, with no wasted words. The parameter list is readable and front-loaded with the key required fields first.

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 tool's complexity (13 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is inadequate for safe and correct use. It lacks critical detail on enum value mappings, behavioral expectations, and prerequisites. The output schema exists, so the return confirmation is sufficient, but the parameter and behavioral gaps make the description incomplete.

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?

The description lists all 13 parameters with brief explanations, which is essential given the schema has 0% description coverage. However, several explanations are vague or incomplete—for example, 'price_type: Price type (default: LIMIT)' does not enumerate the numeric enum values, and 'pre_order: Pre-order flag' lacks any detail. It provides a baseline but does not fully compensate for the schema's silence.

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 'Place a new futures or options order.' This uses a specific verb+resource construction that distinguishes it from stock_new_order and the modify/cancel/query siblings. The mention of 'futures or options' directly differentiates it from the stock order tool.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'new' and limiting to futures/options, which is clear given sibling tools like stock_new_order and modify/cancel/query. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it misses the full top-tier guidance.

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