place-market-order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Place a market order' implies a financial transaction with potential risks, the description doesn't mention critical behavioral aspects like execution guarantees, slippage risks, authentication requirements beyond what's in the schema, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This is inadequate for a tool that executes financial trades.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that states the core purpose without any fluff or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the essential information and wastes no words.

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?

For a tool that executes financial trades with 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is severely lacking. It doesn't explain what a market order is, how it differs from other order types, what the expected response format might be, or any error conditions. The context signals show this is a complex operation, but the description provides minimal context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 action ('Place a market order') and resource ('on an exchange'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'place-futures-market-order', which appears to be a specialized version for futures markets.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'place-futures-market-order' or other order types. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for market orders versus limit orders or other trading operations.

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