preflight_order

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it lists what is returned (commission, fees, order value, buying power, margin impact) and reinforces that no order is placed. The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations are consistent and the description enhances them.

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 and well-structured: a brief summary of purpose and return values, followed by a clear bullet-like list of parameters. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or fluff.

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 13 parameters with complex conditional requirements and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior and parameter semantics. No gaps remain for an agent to misuse the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by listing all 13 parameters, their meanings, default values, and constraints (e.g., mutual exclusivity of quantity/amount, required fields for limit/stop orders). This is essential for correct tool invocation.

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 tool estimates costs and impact of a potential single-leg trade before placing it. It uses specific verbs ('estimate', 'returns') and specifies the resource ('single-leg trade'), differentiating it from multi-leg or order placement 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 explicitly says the tool does NOT place an order, implying it should be used before placing an order. However, it does not distinguish when to use this single-leg preflight versus the multi-leg or spread preflight variants, leaving some ambiguity.

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