send_algo_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'creates' a parent order, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention critical behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether the order is immediately active, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if parameters are invalid. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with 10 parameters.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and algorithm types. However, it could be more structured by separating the algorithm list or adding brief usage context, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 complex mutation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., order ID, status), error conditions, or how the order interacts with the system (e.g., execution timing, sibling tools like 'check_algo_status'). The lack of behavioral and parameter details leaves the agent poorly informed.

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 40% (only 4 of 10 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds minimal value: it lists algorithm types (already in the enum) and mentions 'execution schedule' and 'child slices' (hinting at 'end_time' and 'slice_count' but not explaining them). It doesn't clarify the purpose of 'client_name', 'venue', or other parameters, leaving significant 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 the specific action ('Submit a new algorithmic order') and lists the exact algorithm types (TWAP, VWAP, POV, IS, DARK_AGG, ICEBERG), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'send_order' (likely a regular order) and 'modify_algo' (modification rather than creation). It also specifies the outcome: 'Creates a parent algo order with execution schedule and initial child slices.'

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 'send_order' (for non-algorithmic orders) or 'modify_algo' (for modifying existing algo orders). It mentions algorithm types but doesn't explain when to choose one over another or any prerequisites (e.g., market hours, venue availability).

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