simulate_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses that the order is simulated, passes through guardrails such as kill switch, caps, and data freshness, and returns 'filled' or 'rejected' with a reason. It still does not clarify whether or how the paper portfolio is mutated or whether any authentication is required.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each line adds useful information about parameters, guardrails, and return values. There is no wasted prose.

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?

It covers the core behavior and return statuses despite having no output schema, which is helpful. However, with no annotations and a required 'tipo' parameter entirely undocumented, the definition is not fully complete for safe invocation.

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 must compensate. It explains side with allowed values 'buy'/'sell' and amount_ars as a positive peso amount, but it completely omits the required 'tipo' parameter, leaving a significant gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: simulated buy/sell order of USD against ARS in paper trading. It clearly distinguishes this from real trading and from quote/portfolio siblings, but it does not explicitly name how it differs from get_dolar_quote or get_paper_portfolio.

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 implies usage through 'paper trading' and guardrail checks, suggesting this is for simulated order execution rather than quoting or portfolio lookup. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the sibling tools or when-not-to-use conditions.

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