place_limit_trailing_order

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

With zero annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It explains the two-phase execution ('Wait for limit, then trailing phase; when trail triggers, single swap'), which provides moderate transparency. However, it omits details on order lifecycle (expiry, cancellation, partial fills) and does not mention authorization requirements or potential side effects.

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 very short (two sentences) but sacrifices necessary detail. While brevity is good, it omits vital information like parameter explanations and usage guidance. It is not well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (9 parameters, two-phase order), the description is far from complete. It lacks return value information (no output schema), does not explain how the limit and trail parameters interact, and provides no help for the agent to choose among many sibling order tools. The description is insufficient for reliable tool selection and 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 coverage is 0%, so the description should explain all parameters. It only mentions the 'action' enum. Critical parameters like 'wallet_address', 'token_address', 'target', 'trail', 'amount', 'holdings_percentage', 'slippage', and 'expiry_hours' are left completely unexplained.

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 it places a limit-then-trailing order with a two-phase process (wait for limit, then trailing). It specifies the action field with the allowed values, distinguishing it from simple limit or trailing orders. However, it does not differentiate from the similar 'place_limit_trailing_twap_order' sibling.

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 versus alternatives. The description implies it's for limit-then-trailing orders but does not mention when to choose this over limit, trailing, or TWAP variations. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information.

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