주문 생성 (실거래 주의)

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by detailing that real money is involved, order types are limited, amount-based orders are only for US market buys, and the high-value confirmation flag. It also explains the idempotency behavior and return identifiers. This is rich behavioral context with no contradiction to the annotations.

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 front-loaded with a cautionary warning, followed by a well-organized Args section and a Returns section. It is long due to 10 parameters, but each item is relevant. Some redundancy with the schema exists, but overall it is structured and free of unnecessary fluff.

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?

For a complex, dangerous tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers return values (orderId, clientOrderId), conditional requirements (price needed for LIMIT, confirmHighValueOrder for large orders), market-specific rules (KR vs US), and time-in-force options. No significant missing context.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description largely repeats the schema's parameter descriptions, though it does add a cross-parameter constraint (quantity or orderAmount required) that is implicit in the schema. This does not substantially exceed the baseline because the schema already carries the main semantic weight.

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 tool creates a stock order ("주문을 생성합니다") and explicitly warns that real funds are used. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like toss_modify_order and toss_cancel_order, which handle other order lifecycle operations.

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 that this tool places new orders and warns about real trade execution, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as toss_modify_order for corrections. Usage guidance is implied rather than directly stated, so it falls short of a higher score.

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