create_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that this tool executes real trades on the exchange, which is a critical behavioral trait. It also documents the reduce_only flag semantics and the price requirement for limit orders. It does not mention side effects like order lifecycle or potential partial fills, but the real-trade warning is the most important disclosure and is clearly stated.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important warning (real trade). The parameter list is structured and each line is informative. It could be slightly more concise by removing the redundant 'Args:' header, but overall it is well-organized and every sentence 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, real-money side effects) and the absence of annotations, the description covers the essential semantics: what the tool does, the risk, parameter meanings, and the price requirement. It does not describe the output schema, but an output schema exists, so that is not required. It could add more about order type behaviors (e.g., POST_ONLY implications), but the current level is adequate for safe invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains each parameter's meaning, provides examples for symbol, amount, and price, and clarifies that price is required for limit orders and that reduce_only defaults to False. It does not enumerate allowed values for side or type, but the examples (BUY/SELL, LIMIT/MARKET/POST_ONLY) are given in the description, which is valuable beyond the bare schema.

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 this tool places real orders on an exchange, with an explicit warning that it executes real trades. It names the specific action (下单/place order) and the resource (exchange), and the sibling list makes it distinct from read-only tools like get_balance or get_ticker. The verb and resource are 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 provides clear context: it is for real trading and should be used cautiously. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the warning '请谨慎操作' (operate with caution) and the contrast with the many read-only sibling tools imply it is the write-action tool. It lacks explicit exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it for order placement.

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