dry_run_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly states this is a non-mutating validation (dry run) and lists what is returned (effect, fees, warnings). However, it does not mention failure modes or constraints like rate limits.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second lists outputs. No 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 tool's complexity (6 params, nested 'legs' array, 5 required), the description is insufficient. It omits details on parameter semantics, relationships, and how to construct valid input. The output schema is missing, leaving the agent without return structure guidance.

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% — the description adds no meaning to any of the 6 parameters. It fails to explain the critical 'legs' nested object or the purpose of 'price_effect', which is essential for correct invocation.

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 verb 'validate', the resource 'order', and explicitly distinguishes from placement by saying 'without placing it'. It also lists the returned values: buying power effect, fees, and warnings.

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 usage for order validation before placement but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like place_order or cancel_order. No comparisons or exclusions are given.

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