create_conditional_order

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

Without annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: it warns that conditions trigger actual orders. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., mutation, rate limits, or reversal possibilities). The description is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool that creates financial 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 extremely concise—two sentences plus a brief note. It is front-loaded with the purpose and uses bullet-like notation for the type-parameter relationship. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no redundancy.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the conditional behavior and parameter requirements but misses integrated guidance on constraints like expireDate, clientOrderId idempotency, or confirmHighValueOrder. The schema descriptions fill gaps, but the tool description could offer more cohesive context.

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 schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between order type and the first/second parameters (SINGLE needs only first, OCO/OTO need both). This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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: creating conditional orders for stop loss/take profit etc. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the types (SINGLE, OCO, OTO) and their parameter requirements, making it clear this is for conditional rather than immediate orders.

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 clear context on when to use each order type (SINGLE vs OCO/OTO) by specifying the required parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for immediate orders use create_order) or provide alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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