check_order

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It covers that the tool requires approval, is demo-only, and never sends the order. However, it omits details about error handling, rate limits, or what the response looks like.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose, requirements, and constraints without wasted words. It is well front-loaded with the action and key caveats.

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 having 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only minimal context. It does not explain parameter behavior, return values, or validation errors, making it insufficient for confident use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention any of the 9 parameters (e.g., order_type, symbol, volume, price, sl, tp, etc.) or explain their purpose beyond what is obvious from the schema.

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 runs MT5's server-side order_check validation for a hypothetical order, which is a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., prepare_order_plan, get_orders) by emphasizing the hypothetical, demo-only nature of the order check.

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 implicitly tells when to use the tool: for hypothetical orders that should never be sent, and requires approval. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the demo-only and never-sent cues provide clear usage context.

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