place_trade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool returns the opened trade including request_id, that real-money orders are refused unless PO_ALLOW_REAL=1, and implies a mutation action. However, it does not mention error conditions, margin requirements, or potential losses. This is acceptable but not deeply comprehensive.

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 well-organized: a one-sentence summary, parameter explanations in backticks, return value, and a caveat. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan. No redundant or vague language.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: it specifies required parameters, return value with request_id, how to use it with check_result, and the real-money restriction. It omits details about error handling or the asset parameter's source, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's operation.

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 explains direction ('call'/'up' or 'put'/'down'), amount (stake in account currency), and expiration (duration in seconds, with examples and a pointer to get_asset_info). The only parameter not elaborated is 'asset', which likely requires reference to list_assets/get_asset_info. This is strong compensation given the low schema coverage.

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 begins with a clear verb and resource: 'Open a binary-options trade.' It specifies the action and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_result (which checks outcome) and list_assets (which lists available assets). The reference to request_id and check_result further clarifies its distinct role in the trade lifecycle.

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 explicit usage context: it tells the user to check get_asset_info for allowed expiration values and to pass the returned request_id to check_result for win/loss. This gives clear guidance on how the tool fits with related tools, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for reading trade history). Still, the context is strong enough for an agent to select correctly.

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