dzengi_place_order

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false. The description adds value by stating the financial side effect and the requirement for account reconciliation on unknown outcomes, which goes beyond the structured hints. It reinforces non-idempotency and the need for caution. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the critical non-idempotency warning is placed second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity (17 parameters, 6 required, no output schema, no enums), the description provides only the purpose and retry warning. It does not explain parameter semantics, return values, error handling, or how to construct a valid order. For a mutation with significant financial impact, this is insufficient. The description covers only a small fraction of what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 0% – the schema provides no descriptions for any of the 17 parameters. The tool description adds zero parameter information. It does not explain required fields, acceptable values, or relationships between parameters (e.g., how price, stopLoss, takeProfit relate to order type). The agent is left to infer everything from parameter names alone, which is inadequate for such a complex order placement tool.

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 action: 'Place an order' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from siblings like get_order, cancel_order, and edit_order. The phrase 'with a financial side effect' reinforces the mutating nature, making the purpose 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?

The description provides guidance on retry behavior – 'sent once' and 'requires account reconciliation before any retry' – which is useful for when not to retry blindly. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like preflight_order (for testing without execution) or edit_order (for modifying existing orders). It implies usage for placing new orders but doesn't contrast with siblings.

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