placeRwaOrder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the rate limit (5 req/s), required fields, and behavior for each order type (e.g., 'deduct settlement coin', 'lock shares'). However, it does not mention whether the operation is reversible or what happens on failure beyond the error code.

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 well-structured with sections, bullet points, and clear hierarchy. It front-loads the core action and then provides essential details efficiently.

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 tool's complexity (two order types, multiple parameters), the description covers the main behavioral differences and required constraints. Without an output schema, it could mention what the response contains (e.g., order ID), but it does point to the Get Order endpoint for tracking.

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%, meaning the description adds meaning where the schema does not. It explains the conditional nature of stakeAmount and redeemShares based on orderType, and notes that orderLinkId must be unique. However, it does not describe productId, coin, or accountType in detail beyond stating the default for accountType.

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 Stake or Redeem order for an RWA product, with detailed explanations of what each action does (deduct settlement coin for Stake, lock shares for Redeem). It distinguishes itself from other order tools by specifying RWA 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?

The description explains when to use Stake vs Redeem and provides important notes about orderLinkId uniqueness and error handling. It references the Get Order endpoint for tracking, but does not explicitly exclude use cases or compare with siblings like createOrder or placeEarnOrder.

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