create_gtt_rule

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

The description adds a key behavioral detail beyond the annotations: 'When trigger price is hit, the order is automatically placed.' This is important side-effect information not captured by the destructiveHint and openWorldHint annotations. It does not mention other behaviors like persistence but provides enough context for safe invocation.

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 two concise sentences, with the core purpose and trigger behavior front-loaded. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to understanding.

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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the schema fully documents the inputs, and the description covers the essential behavior. It could mention return values or post-trigger actions, but the current description is reasonably complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 11 parameters, each with meaningful descriptions (e.g., 'Price at which the order triggers'). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific insights, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Create a GTT (Good Till Triggered) rule.' It also explains the trigger behavior, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like modify_gtt_rule, cancel_gtt_rule, and get_gtt_rule_list. This is a specific verb+resource combination with additional context.

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?

While it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, the tool's name and the presence of sibling tools like modify_gtt_rule and cancel_gtt_rule make the intended use case clear. The description implies it is for creating new GTT rules, which is sufficient guidance for most agents.

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