create_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the PRIVATE_KEY requirement, which is a meaningful behavioral trait (needs authentication). However, it does not mention side effects on positions, return values, or failure modes, which would be valuable for a mutation 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?

The description is concise at three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the prerequisite and a key parameter tip. Every sentence contributes essential information without waste.

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 10-parameter trading mutation with no output schema, the description gives the essential prerequisite and a pointer for decimals, but it lacks higher-level context such as when to use it versus swap, or what the expected outcome is (e.g., order visible via get_orders). The schema covers parameters well, so this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's note that 'Size and collateral amounts are raw integers' is redundant with the schema's detailed parameter descriptions and adds no new semantic value beyond reiterating what the schema already provides.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a trading order on Typus Perp.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_orders and cancel_order, as it is the creation action in the order 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 concrete usage context: it requires PRIVATE_KEY in .env and instructs the agent to use get_markets for size_decimal, which is a prerequisite and a preparatory step. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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