place_gtt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the single most important behavior: it is a dry-run unless KITE_MCP_ENABLE_TRADING=true, so the agent knows the call may not place a real order. It still omits what a dry-run returns, whether validation errors surface, and the margin/permission requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the safety caveat. The parenthetical example costs a few words but earns its place by grounding the term 'GTT'.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the dry-run disclosure covers the safety gap, but the description leaves the agent without any model of the orders array or what success/failure looks like. Adequate to avoid a dangerous call, not adequate to call it correctly on the first try.

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 coverage is only 50%, so the description should compensate but gives no parameter guidance at all. The relationship between trigger_type values and the orders array (e.g. that 'two-leg' OCO needs matching trigger pairs and up to two child orders) is undocumented in both places.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Create a GTT order') with an illustrative example (standing stop-loss/target) that separates it from a plain place_order. It stops short of naming sibling tools like modify_gtt or place_order, but the GTT concept is distinctive enough that an agent can tell them apart.

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 example implies the use case (standing stop-loss or target) and the dry-run condition gives a key operational gate, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus place_order/modify_gtt, and no statement of prerequisites such as margin or enabled GTT on the account.

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