place_broker_order

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses the critical two-step behavior: the first call is non-destructive and sends nothing, while the second call actually submits the order. It also notes local signing/submission and forbids autonomous confirmation, adding substantial behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important fact ('real order'), followed by the mandatory protocol. Every sentence adds necessary operational guidance without padding.

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 essential safety-critical two-step protocol, which is the most important context for a destructive order tool. However, with 9 parameters and no output schema, it leaves gaps around preview content, order_type/price behavior, account requirements, and potential OTP/auth prerequisites.

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 only 11%, so the description must compensate for under-documented parameters. It explains the confirm parameter's role well, but does not clarify symbol, side, quantity, price, broker, market, account, or order_type semantics. Most parameters remain dependent on schema names/defaults for 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 clearly states the tool places REAL orders ('Đặt lệnh THẬT') across DNSE, SSI, and TCBS, and distinguishes it from read-only/cancellation siblings by emphasizing the live, signed, locally-submitted nature. The 2-step confirm protocol further clarifies the tool's specific role.

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 gives explicit invocation guidance: call first without confirm to get a preview, wait for explicit user confirmation, then call again with confirm=true. It also warns not to auto-confirm. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the protocol is clear enough for correct usage.

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