place_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only partially addresses this. It discloses that this is a live order and adds the important constraint that quantity and orderAmount are mutually exclusive, with orderAmount for US MARKET orders. However, it does not disclose that a live order may execute immediately, that the order may be irreversible once filled, or how the confirm and confirmHighValueOrder fields affect 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 compact, front-loaded with the purpose, and does not waste words. The second paragraph is a little redundant with the schema field names, but it still earns its place by adding the exclusivity and US MARKET constraint.

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 an 11-parameter live trading tool with no annotations, the description is not complete enough to invoke correctly. It fails to define side and order_type, which are required, and it does not explain price conditions, time_in_force semantics, confirmation behavior, or clientOrderId purpose. The output schema may cover return values, but the missing invocation guidance is significant.

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 coverage is 0%, and several required parameters such as side, order_type, and account_seq are not explained at all. The description adds only two parameter-related insights: quantity/orderAmount mutual exclusivity and orderAmount's restriction to US MARKET orders. The wire-field list mostly repeats schema names without clarifying allowed values, formats, or conditions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Submit' with a clear resource 'stock order' and immediately distinguishes this as a live, order-creating action. This differentiates it from sibling tools like cancel_order, modify_order, and get_order. Mentioning 'quantity- or amount-based' adds useful scope.

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 submitting real stock orders, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or exclusions. It gives no guidance about when not to use it, such as for paper trading, testing, or modification of existing orders. The usage context is mostly inferred from the word 'Submit' and the sibling tool names.

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