Manifest Place Limit Order

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

Annotations indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds no further behavioral details such as order lifecycle, confirmation, or potential failures. 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?

The description is concise with two sentences. The first sentence states purpose directly. The second sentence introduces SAP context, which may be slightly distracting but does not significantly degrade clarity.

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 is minimal for a complex trading tool. It lacks essential context: no explanation of what happens after placing an order (e.g., on-chain transaction, pending fill), no mention of required balances or fees, and no description of the output schema (though output schema exists).

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as price units or order type details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no negative evidence.

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 limit order on a Manifest market,' specifying the verb and resource. The title is consistent. However, it does not differentiate this tool from other order placement tools like openbook_placeOrder or jupiter_createLimitOrder, which are siblings.

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 provides context about SAP MCP and directs to use other sap_* tools for on-chain publishing, offering some guidance. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use for standard limit orders on Manifest'), and does not mention prerequisites like wallet funding or market existence.

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