Submit Trade Intent

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

The description goes beyond the idempotent and destructive hints by disclosing a conditional approval requirement based on environment mode. It does not detail all side effects, but the added condition is meaningful and non-obvious.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action plus an important conditional, making it well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Although the approval-mode condition is helpful, the description omits critical context such as how approval_id relates to the approval requirement, expected output, or failure scenarios. Given the tool's complexity as an execution step with conditional approval, the description is 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 schema provides no descriptions for intent_id or approval_id, and the description does not explain either parameter. The optional approval_id's role in satisfying the approval requirement is not addressed, leaving the agent without necessary parameter semantics.

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 action ('Submit the planned orders') and the object ('a persisted trade intent'), distinguishing it from create, cancel, reconcile, and place_order tools. It also adds the key condition about approval mode, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 after a trade intent has been persisted and suggests an approval prerequisite in certain modes ('Requires a trade-intent approval when MCP_ORDER_APPROVAL_MODE=telegram'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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