buy_asset

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

Annotations already flag this as a destructive write operation, but the description adds crucial non-obvious behaviors: the ₺5000 order value refusal threshold, the queueing of off-hours orders for the next session, and the market vs. limit order distinction. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 sentences deliver the core purpose and constraints with no filler. The structure front-loads the action and follows with conditional behaviors.

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 no output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns after order placement, and it omits details like rejection handling or sufficient-funds requirements. However, it covers the main operational constraints (value cap, market hours, market/limit behavior) and the schema handles parameter definitions, making it adequate for a moderately simple 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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters, including the note that limit_price is optional for market orders. The description restates the market-order instruction but adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; the ₺5000 limit is a global constraint, not parameter-specific.

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?

Description opens with 'Place a BUY order', immediately specifying the action and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like sell_asset and read-only getters. The additional instructions about limit price and market hours reinforce the tool's specific purpose.

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 clear operational context: the ₺5000 value cap, market-order instructions, and BIST trading hours. However, it does not explicitly compare with sell_asset or other order-management tools, so there are no exclusions or alternative guidance beyond the implied buy intent.

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