place_market_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral features. It mentions execution at market price and extended_hours support, but fails to disclose destructive aspects (e.g., immediate fund usage, slippage risk, fill guarantees), leaving the agent without crucial safety information.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections. It is efficient, but the Returns line is vague ('Details of the placed order') and could be more informative. Still, it avoids fluff and uses each sentence purposefully.

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 (financial order placement) and no output schema, the description lacks details on order lifecycle, edge cases (e.g., market closed, insufficient funds), and the structure of the returned Order object. This leaves the agent with incomplete information for correct invocation and result handling.

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 0%, so the description adds significant value. It explains ticker (with example format), quantity as 'shares/units', and extended_hours with a condition. This provides practical meaning beyond the minimal schema titles and types.

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?

Clearly states the tool places a market order to buy or sell an instrument at the current market price. The verb 'place' and resource 'market order' are specific, and it implicitly distinguishes from limit/stop orders via sibling tool names.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like place_limit_order or place_stop_order. The description only implies immediate execution at market price, but does not specify prerequisites, order validity, or scenarios where a limit/stop order might be preferred.

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