trading_place_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose that placing an order is a mutating action, potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error scenarios. The description only lists 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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. However, it uses abbreviations and lacks punctuation, which slightly hinders readability.

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?

Given the complexity of order placement (9 parameters, multiple order types), the description omits details like parameter relationships, timeInForce meanings, and positionSide usage. The schema partially compensates, but the description could be more comprehensive.

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 description adds conditional requirement information (e.g., 'quantity is required for limit orders') beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. With 89% schema coverage, this additional context improves parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: placing trading orders (limit, market, stop, take profit). It is distinct from sibling tools like indicators, market data, and order management tools. The verb '下单' (place order) and resource 'order' are specific.

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 for placing orders but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., trading_place_algo for algorithmic orders). No guidance on when not to use it.

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