bitpin_place_order

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden: it does disclose the auth requirement and the language flexibility, which is real value. However, it never says this submits a live, irreversible trade on real funds, nor anything about validation failures, minimums, or what happens on rejection — significant omissions for an order-placement mutation.

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?

Three short sentences with the action front-loaded, followed by supported types and then the environment constraints. Nothing is padded and there is no narrative filler.

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?

With 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and language handling but omits the conditional parameter dependencies (price for limit/stop_limit/oco, stop_price for stop orders, quote_amount for market buys) and gives no hint of the return value such as an order ID or status. Adequate but with clear gaps for a high-stakes mutation.

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% and each parameter is documented with type, requiredness context, and Persian variants. The description's only added parameter-adjacent claim — accepting English or Persian input, including Persian numerals — is already repeated in nearly every schema field description, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Place a new cryptocurrency order on BitPin') and enumerates the supported order types, which lets an agent distinguish it from read-only siblings like bitpin_get_orders and bitpin_get_order_by_id. It does not explicitly contrast with bitpin_place_bulk_orders, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 usage context is implied by the name and the order-type list, and 'Requires authentication' signals a prerequisite. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over bitpin_place_bulk_orders, nor any caveat about 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.