place_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions suppressConfirmations but does not explain execution latency, cancellation policies, success/failure responses, or rate limits. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 followed by 6 concise examples. The examples are well-organized and add significant value without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured with a summary line, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 15 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers common order types and key parameters. However, it lacks details on return values, error handling, and some parameters (exchange, tif). For the complexity, it is moderately complete but has notable omissions.

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 coverage is 0% (no field descriptions), so the description must compensate. The examples effectively illustrate parameter relationships (e.g., symbol vs conid, secType and expiry for options, suppressConfirmations). However, some parameters like exchange and tif are not demonstrated, leaving minor gaps.

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 'Place a trading order' and provides multiple examples covering various order types (market, limit, stop, options). This makes the purpose explicit and distinguishes it from sibling tools like confirm_order or get_order_status.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., confirm_order, get_order_status). Usage context is implied through examples, but there is no guidance on exclusion criteria or prerequisites (e.g., authentication or account validation).

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