stock_new_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the action and that a confirmation or error message is returned, but does not mention side effects, required authentication/connection state, or whether the order is immediately sent or staged. This is a significant gap for a financial action 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 description is well-structured as an Args list, with each parameter on its own line and the one-line purpose at the top. It is appropriately sized for a 12-parameter tool, but it somewhat duplicates schema information (e.g., parameter names and types), which could be trimmed. Still, it is efficient and readable.

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 description covers parameter meanings and defaults, which is essential given the low schema coverage. However, it lacks higher-level context: it does not mention that a connection/login may be required (given sibling tools like 'connect' and 'login'), does not describe error scenarios, and does not provide an example invocation. The output schema is present but not described, so the return line is the only clue.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter list is essential. It adds meaningful detail such as stock symbol format ('2330'), price '0' for market orders, buy/sell values (1/2), date format (YYYYMMDD), and defaults for optional fields. This goes well beyond the schema's bare titles, though some terms like 'CASH' and 'LIMIT' are left unexplained.

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 opens with 'Place a new stock order,' which clearly specifies the action (place) and the resource (new stock order). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'stock_modify_order' and 'stock_cancel_order,' and the intent is immediately clear.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer a different tool such as 'stock_modify_order' for existing orders. The only hint is the name and the one-line purpose, which implies usage but does not articulate conditions or alternatives.

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