kite-mcp

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

Annotations indicate a non-destructive write operation. The description adds return value information (order ID on success) and explains the variety parameter behavior. Missing details on failure modes, side effects (e.g., funds holds), or order state transitions.

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 sentences with optimal structure: purpose first, return value second, specific parameter guidance third. No redundant text; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Adequately notes the return value (order ID) given that an output schema exists. However, for a complex 9-parameter trading API with zero schema documentation, the description is incomplete as it fails to explain critical trading concepts like order types, stop-loss triggers, or exchange codes.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description minimally compensates by documenting only the 'variety' parameter (regular/amo) and implying transaction_type values (buy/sell). Seven other critical parameters—including order_type, trigger_price, and product—remain completely undocumented.

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?

Clearly states the specific action (place) and resource (order/buy/sell). Effectively distinguishes from sibling get/cancel/modify tools, though distinction from place_gtt could be more explicit.

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 guidance for the 'variety' parameter values (regular vs amo), but lacks high-level guidance on when to choose this tool over place_gtt or other order alternatives.

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