Create Multiple Orders

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

Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description still adds materially new behavior: request-shape validation rejects the entire batch before reaching the exchange, per-entry accept/fill/reject outcomes arrive on the order stream rather than in the response, and createdOrderIds preserve request order. That is exactly the context an agent needs and cannot get from the schema.

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?

Five short sentences with zero filler, and the highest-stakes fact ('LIVE ACCOUNT ACTION') is front-loaded before any mechanics. Each sentence delivers a distinct operational fact: limit, validation failure mode, outcome delivery channel, ID ordering, and funds risk.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by explaining what the response does and does not contain (createdOrderIds only; fills on the stream). It omits prerequisites such as authentication, permissions, or rate limits for a batch of 20 destructive writes, which keeps it just short of complete.

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 100%, so the nested order fields (tif, intent vs outcomeSide+action, price, cashOrderQty, slippage) are already documented inline. The description adds nothing about entry-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create up to 20 orders in a single request') and makes the batch scope explicit, including the 1-20 limit. What it lacks is any naming of a sibling (create_order for singles, preview_order for dry runs), so the agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the batch cap and the LIVE ACCOUNT ACTION banner suggest when batching is appropriate, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer create_order for a single order or preview_order to validate before committing real funds. Given the sibling set contains both, that omission is a real gap.

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