trading_place_algo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states algoType is fixed and lists supported types, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens upon order trigger or failure. For a trading tool, this is insufficient.

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 very short (two sentences plus a type list) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It conveys essential information without waste. However, it could include a brief note on what happens after placing without becoming verbose.

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 with 8 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits crucial context such as order lifecycle, success/failure indicators, and error handling. Agents lack information to fully understand the tool's behavior and consequences.

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 50%, meaning some parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds value by revealing that 'algoType' is fixed (though not in schema), but it does not explain the differences between order types (e.g., STOP vs STOP_MARKET) or the meaning of triggerPrice relative to price. The description provides marginal additional insight over the schema.

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 conditional order (stop loss/take profit/trailing stop)' and lists supported types. It distinguishes itself from regular order placement tools by specifying algoType fixed as CONDITIONAL. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like trading_place_order, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, not to use cases, or when to prefer other order types. The description implies it's for conditional orders but lacks actionable criteria for selection.

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