new-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 mentions supported order types, but does not disclose authentication requirements, error handling, idempotency, or what happens on partial fills. It only lists order types, which is already in the schema enum. This is a significant gap for a mutating financial tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and venue. The list of order types is long but relevant. No wasted words, though the middle sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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 complex trading operation with 16 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error cases, or prerequisites like API permissions or account funding. An agent would need to infer critical details.

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 100%, so the schema already provides detailed semantics for all 16 parameters (enums, required fields, dependencies). The description adds no parameter-level guidance; it merely lists order types already covered by the enum. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (order) on a specific venue (Binance USDⓈ-M Futures). The name 'new-order' and siblings like cancel-order, query-order make its role 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?

Says it is 'essential for executing trades on futures markets,' implying when to use it, but does not name alternatives or note when not to use it (e.g., use modify-order to change an existing order). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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