place_market_order

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 discloses that market orders execute at the current market price and that the tool returns an order confirmation with order ID and status. It does not mention slippage risk or partial fills, but the key execution behavior is stated.

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 and well-structured: an opening action statement, a short Args block, a returns line, and a final note that adds practical guidance. Every line earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description provides enough detail for a real trading action: parameter semantics, execution behavior, and return value. It does not mention prerequisites like account funding or potential failure modes, but given the output schema exists and the core workflow is clearly documented, the description is reasonably complete.

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. It clearly explains all four parameters, including the acceptable values for side and time_in_force, and gives an example symbol. This fully covers the gap left by the input 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Place a market order to buy or sell shares.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling order types by naming the market order and contrasting it with limit orders in the note.

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 states the core use case and explicitly says 'Use limit orders for price control,' giving the agent a clear alternative condition. It does not, however, address when stop or stop-limit orders might be preferred, so it is slightly incomplete relative to the full sibling set.

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