placeAdvanceEarnOrder

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: async acceptance (order not settled on success), rate limits, idempotency constraints (orderLinkId persists per category), quote validation (stale quotes rejected), slippage protection (SmartLeverage initialPrice ±5%), redemption restrictions (60 min for SmartLeverage, 30 min for DoubleWin), and error handling (error 180030). Comprehensive.

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 long but logically structured: core purpose, prerequisites, rate limit, general notes, then per-category sections with bullet points. Every sentence is informative and necessary given the complexity. Minor trim could improve conciseness, but the structure is excellent for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Given the complexity (14 params, nested objects, 4 categories, no output schema, no annotations), the description is highly complete. It covers prerequisites, async behavior, error conditions, redemption rules, and field sources. The only minor gap is lack of explicit description of the response payload (e.g., order ID), but it directs to Get Order for tracking, implicitly covering return values.

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%, so the description carries full burden. It explains every nested object's fields: e.g., smartLeverageStakeExtra.initialPrice is current market price, breakevenPrice must come from Get Product Extra Info; doubleWinStakeExtra.leverage not exceeding product info, lowerPrice/upperPrice required for RFQ; discountBuyExtra fields explained in detail with precision constraints. The description adds significant value beyond the raw 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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'Place a Dual Assets staking order.' While the title is missing, the verb 'Place' and the specific resource 'AdvanceEarnOrder' are clear. The description expands to cover multiple categories (DualAssets, SmartLeverage, DoubleWin, DiscountBuy), and the tool name distinguishes it from siblings like placeEarnOrder, placeFixedTermOrder, and placeTokenOrder.

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 provides explicit guidelines: requires 'Earn' permission, 5 req/s rate limit, asynchronous processing, quote freshness (selectPrice/apyE8 must match valid quotes), idempotency via orderLinkId, and detailed per-category instructions. It also references when to use ancillary tools (e.g., Get Order for tracking, Get Product Extra Info for quotes, Get Redeem Estimation). No contradictions or misleading guidance.

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