send_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 mentions validation, corporate action checks, and auto-routing behavior, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling, response format, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, leaving significant gaps for a tool that sends orders.

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 packs multiple operational details (validation, corporate action checks, auto-routing) without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 order-sending tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details about return values, error conditions, security requirements, and comprehensive parameter explanations that would be needed for reliable agent usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 7 parameters, the description doesn't add meaningful semantic information about any parameters. It mentions 'symbol' and 'venue' indirectly in the validation and auto-routing context, but doesn't explain what 'client_name' represents, the meaning of 'order_type' values, or other parameter details needed for proper usage.

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 ('send a new order') and the mechanism ('via FIX NewOrderSingle'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'send_algo_order' or 'validate_orders', which would require more differentiation for a perfect score.

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 context by mentioning validation, corporate action checks, and auto-routing, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_algo_order' or 'query_orders'. It provides some operational context but lacks clear when/when-not guidance.

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