Place order

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

Annotations already mark the call as non-read-only and destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: guardrails may reject the order, bracket support depends on the account configuration, trailPrice is an absolute level rather than a distance, and rationale is persisted to the journal. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: order types, price prerequisites, bracket caveat, guardrail warning, and rationale side effect. It is front-loaded with the verb and uses compact notation to avoid unnecessary prose.

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 12-parameter, 6-required, no-output-schema trading tool with destructive annotations, this description is largely complete for invocation: it covers conditional requirements, an important account-level dependency, and an execution guardrail. The main gap is that it does not describe the expected return value after a successful submission.

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 only 33% schema description coverage, the description carries important parameter meaning: it maps each order type to its required price field, clarifies trailPrice semantics, and confirms brackets are measured in ticks. It does not discuss every parameter, but the schema already handles accountId, contractId, customTag, and rationale.

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 opens with 'Submit an order' and then enumerates every supported order type with its conditions, making it clear this is the create-new-order tool rather than modify_order, cancel_order, or close_position. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the semantic contrast and order-type detail make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit conditional guidance: brackets only work when Auto OCO Brackets is enabled, and otherwise the agent should place a separate stop order after the fill. It also warns that server guardrails may block the order. Broader selection rules against modify/cancel/close siblings are not stated, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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