place_limit_order

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the critical execution trait: 'Order will only fill at limit_price or better,' and notes that an order confirmation is returned. It does not discuss resting order behavior or partial fills, but the essential fill-price guarantee is clearly communicated.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, the Args section is formatted for quick scanning, and the closing behavioral note is the only extra detail. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description only needs to state that an order confirmation is returned, which it does. All parameters are covered and the fill rule is explained. It lacks explicit cross-references to sibling order types, but that gap is more about usage guidance than invocation completeness.

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?

The input schema provides 0% description coverage, and the tool description fully compensates. It defines every parameter, gives a symbol example, specifies side as buy/sell, explains limit_price as maximum or minimum depending on side, and enumerates valid time_in_force values.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Place a limit order at a specified price.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like place_market_order and place_stop_order by naming the order type and the price constraint.

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 the tool is for orders that should execute only at or better than a specified price, stating 'Order will only fill at limit_price or better.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use a market or stop order, so usage guidance remains implied rather than direct.

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