place_gtt

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

Annotations indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds only minimal behavioral context (supports single/two-leg). It does not disclose any side effects, error conditions, or rate limits.

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, which is concise, but it sacrifices information. It could be expanded without losing conciseness, e.g., by adding brief parameter explanations.

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 6 required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not mention any prerequisites, return values (though output schema exists), or usage examples, making it incomplete for a complex 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain any of the 6 required parameters. The mention of 'single and two-leg' hints at trigger_type and orders but does not clarify their meaning or usage.

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 a GTT order and specifies it supports single and two-leg (OCO) triggers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like place_order (regular orders) and modify_order.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like place_order or get_gtt_triggers. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for GTT orders.

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