Openbook Place Order

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is a mutation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that, such as side effects (e.g., funds locked, order book state changes) or requirements (e.g., approval, gas fees).

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 short (two sentences), but the second sentence introduces tangential SAP context that may distract from the core function. It could be more focused on the tool's primary purpose.

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 complexity of a trading tool with 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain typical usage flow, prerequisites (e.g., sufficient balance), or results (e.g., order placement confirmation).

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%, providing basic parameter descriptions. The main description adds no extra meaning to parameters, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 an order on an Openbook market,' which specifies the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like openbook_cancelOrder or other trading tools, so it loses some points.

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 includes a note about using SAP registration tools when needed, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jupiter_swap or raydium-pools. No explicit context for appropriate use is given.

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