Place Order

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, and the description's insistence on clientOrderId aligns with the idempotency profile. The description adds the conditional approval-mode behavior, which is useful beyond annotations, but does not describe side effects such as order transmission or partial-fill behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisite constraints follow immediately. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a complex order-placement tool with an output schema and rich nested OrderSpec documentation, the description covers the two most decision-relevant facts: idempotency requirement and the conditional approval gate. It does not enumerate order types, but those are documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, yet the description explicitly names two critical parameters (clientOrderId and approval_id) and their roles. However, the nested OrderSpec carries the heavy burden of the other parameters, and the tool description does not compensate for the many order-type-specific fields (stopPrice, limitPrice, bracket legs) beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb ('Place'), a resource ('order'), and scopes the tool to 'single-leg or bracket order', which distinguishes the two supported shapes. This is immediately differentiated from siblings like cancel_order and preview_order by the action it performs.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites: 'Requires a clientOrderId' and the conditional approval requirement when MCP_ORDER_APPROVAL_MODE=telegram, pointing to ibkr_request_trade_approval as the source of approval_id. It gives clear context for invocation, though it does not state when NOT to use it versus preview_order or the trade_intent flow.

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