order-stock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'buy/sell' but doesn't clarify if this is a live trade execution, a simulation, or requires confirmation. It omits critical details like authentication needs, rate limits, transaction costs, or whether the order is immediate or pending.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with four parameters, though it could benefit from slightly more detail given the lack of annotations and schema coverage.

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 complexity of a financial trading tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it correctly.

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 must compensate but fails to do so. It doesn't explain what 'symbol', 'quantity', 'price', or 'order_type' mean in this context (e.g., currency units, order type options like market/limit). The description adds no semantic value beyond the bare parameter names.

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 action ('Order stock') and specifies the resource (stock from Korea Investment & Securities), distinguishing it from sibling tools that are primarily query operations (e.g., 'inquery-balance', 'inquery-stock-price'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the buy/sell aspect beyond the parentheses, which could be more prominent.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'order-overseas-stock' or the various 'inquery' siblings. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as authentication or account setup, and doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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