sell_asset

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

The annotations already indicate a destructive, non-read-only action. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: the order value cap, the market-order/limit-price distinction, and the queueing-outside-market-hours note. No contradiction 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?

Three short sentences, each carrying essential information. The first sentence states the action, the second a critical constraint, and the third covers two useful behaviors. No redundancy or 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?

The description covers the core purpose, key constraints, and market-hours behavior. However, with no output schema, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., order confirmation, order ID), which is a gap for an agent needing to confirm the action succeeded.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description further clarifies limit_price by stating it should be omitted for a market order, and the order-value threshold indirectly relates to quantity and price, adding practical meaning.

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 opens with 'Place a SELL order', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling buy_asset and other tools, and the name sell_asset reinforces the intent.

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?

Provides concrete usage context: the ₺5000 value refusal, the choice between market and limit orders, and the market-hours queueing behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke this tool.

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