Submit Multi-Leg Order

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, destructive operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds one useful behavioral trait beyond annotations: the all-or-nothing fill/rest semantics. However, it does not disclose other behavioral details such as idempotency expectations, validation failures, or response behavior.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. The core action and the most important behavioral constraint are both front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complex 9-parameter order tool with no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the key atomicity concept, but it does not describe response expectations, failure modes, or sufficiently route an agent away from submit_order. Schema and annotations compensate for much, but not all, of the missing operational 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, which is acceptable but not additive; the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('multi-leg option combination order'), and adds a distinguishing behavioral detail: all legs fill or rest together as one strategy order. This clearly separates it from siblings like submit_order, which would handle single-leg or simpler 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 implies this tool is for multi-leg option combination orders, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over submit_order or any other sibling, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is inferable but not directly guided.

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