place_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the execution guards (trading enabled, MAX_ORDER_NOTIONAL_USD notional cap), that quantity/price are silently rounded to the market's lot/tick, and that a getMaxPerpOrderSize pre-check happens before submission. Gaps remain on failure behavior and what is returned on success or rejection.

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 action and target lead the sentence, followed by the guard list as a compact enumeration. Every clause supplies a distinct operational fact — no restatement of the tool name, no filler.

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 state-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers environment, signer, preconditions, rounding, and a pre-check. It stops short of describing the result shape or how rejections surface, which is the one thing left unstated for a mutation tool.

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, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: submitted quantity/price may be adjusted to lot/tick increments and the effective size is bounded by a notional cap. Those facts change what values an agent should pass, which is exactly what parameter prose should add.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Place a perp order') plus two scoping facts an agent needs: dreamDEX testnet and the server wallet as signer. None of the siblings (list_markets, get_market, get_account, cancel_order, close_position, claim_voucher) can be confused with this action, so differentiation is achieved without naming one.

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?

Gives the precondition that selects this tool ('trading must be enabled') and an environmental constraint (testnet, server wallet) that tells the agent who is trading. It does not name alternatives for exiting or unwinding exposure (close_position, cancel_order) or say when not to place an order, so it falls short of a 5.

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