open_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 explains execution behavior (immediate vs pending) and highlights the SELL_STOP constraint, which is useful. Yet it omits side effects (e.g., margin requirements), error conditions, and what the tool returns on success or failure.

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 well-structured with a bulleted list that makes order types scannable. It front-loads the purpose and includes a Korean translation, though it duplicates schema content and the translation is extraneous for many users. Overall, it's efficient but slightly repetitive.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more operational context. It covers order type semantics well but lacks return value details, error behavior, and prerequisites like account status or margin. The schema handles parameter explanations, so the description could have enriched the context further.

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 description doesn't need to explain parameters. It adds a bit by emphasizing the SELL_STOP rule, but the rest of the order type details are already in the schema's type description. The description provides minimal added semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'Open a new trading order (market or pending)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cancel_order, modify_order, and close_position by focusing on creation, and the order type list further clarifies the scope.

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 opening line clearly indicates when to use this tool (to open a new order), and the order type explanations help choose the right type. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives for modifying or canceling existing orders, though the sibling names make this obvious.

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