place_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a good job: it discloses that TP/SL are auto-calculated if not provided, that price defaults to current market price, and that a dict with details/error is returned. It does not mention risk or how auto-calc is derived, but the core state-changing behavior is explicit.

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 purpose-led, then uses a clean Args block with one line per parameter and a Returns line. It is appropriately sized for a 7-parameter tool with no wasted sentences or redundant information.

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 output schema exists and all parameters are semantically covered, the description is complete for both selection and invocation. It covers purpose, behavior, parameter meaning, defaults, and return type without needing extra external 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all seven parameters with examples, defaults, and meaning (e.g., symbol format, side values, price as limit price or market, leverage default, TP/SL auto-calc). This exceeds baseline and makes the schema usable.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'Place an order on Hyperliquid.' It further distinguishes the tool by mentioning optional market pricing and auto-calculated TP/SL, which separates it from sibling tools like close_position and cancel_open_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 context clearly implies the tool is for opening orders, and param details clarify when defaults apply (e.g., market price when price is None). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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