place_stop_limit_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 goes beyond a simple statement of purpose by explaining that when stop_price is reached, a limit order at limit_price is placed, which is the core conditional behavior. This gives an agent an accurate mental model of the execution flow, though it does not cover edge cases like partial fills or order rejections.

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 well-structured and efficient: a one-sentence purpose, a clear argument list, and a single explanatory line for the order behavior. Every sentence contributes unique value, 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?

Given the tool complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is thorough enough for correct invocation. It explains all parameters and the order trigger mechanism. Minor gaps like order status handling or permission requirements are not mentioned, but the core behavior is fully covered.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain every parameter, and it does. It defines symbol as a stock symbol example, qty as number of shares, side as 'buy' or 'sell', stop_price as the trigger price, limit_price as the price for the triggered order, and time_in_force as 'day' or 'gtc'. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw 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 'Place a stop-limit order combining stop and limit orders,' which clearly specifies the action, resource, and nature of the order. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like place_stop_order and place_limit_order by explicitly stating it is a combination, and then clarifies the triggering mechanism.

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 clear context for when the tool is appropriate: whenever a stop-limit order is needed, as it explains the stop-then-limit behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer the correct choice.

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