place_stop_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It correctly explains the stop order lifecycle: it rests until stop_price is hit, then becomes a market order. It does not detail slippage, fill risk, or what happens if the stop is not hit, but the core execution behavior is disclosed.

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-loads the purpose, then lists parameters in a scannable block, and ends with a single useful use-case sentence. No filler.

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 live-order nature and missing annotations, the description covers the essential parameter semantics and behavior; output schema covers return shape. It omits caveats like stop-price placement relative to market or fill guarantees, but an agent has enough to invoke and select the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema provides only names/types with 0% description coverage, so the description must educate the agent. It defines each parameter, gives a concrete example for symbol, restricts side to 'buy' or 'sell', and time_in_force to 'day' or 'gtc', and clarifies that stop_price is the trigger-to-market price.

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 names the exact action and resource ('Place a stop order') and defines the triggering mechanic ('triggers at a specified price' and 'becomes a market order'), which differentiates it from market, limit, and stop-limit siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit use case ('Useful for stop-loss orders to limit downside risk'), which helps an agent decide when a stop order is appropriate. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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