fidelity_batch_orders

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that orders are placed 'one at a time' and 'Returns results for each order,' which is useful. However, it does not mention failure handling (e.g., stop on first error), rate limits, or account prerequisites. The `dry_run` parameter behavior is covered in schema but not reinforced in description.

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 short, direct sentences with no extraneous information. The key action ('Place multiple buy/sell orders') is front-loaded, and additional detail is provided in subsequent sentences. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Despite having 3 parameters and no output schema, the description only vaguely says 'Returns results for each order.' It does not specify what those results contain (e.g., order IDs, status, errors). There is no mention of partial execution, concurrency, or dependencies between orders. For a batch operation, this lacks sufficient detail for an agent to anticipate behavior.

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 each parameter has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds 'useful for portfolio rebalancing' as context but does not add new parameter-level semantics. Baseline is 3 given high 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 clearly states 'Place multiple buy/sell orders sequentially in a single account,' specifying the verb (place), resource (orders), and scope (multiple, sequential, single account). It distinguishes from sibling `fidelity_place_order` which likely handles single orders, and adds context 'useful for portfolio rebalancing.'

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 mentions it's 'useful for portfolio rebalancing' but does not explicitly exclude scenarios where single order placement (`fidelity_place_order`) would be better. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance beyond the implicit multiple vs. single distinction.

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