Place Print Order

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description warns 'moves real funds', explains the mechanics of earning premium per 24h cycle, the strike fill condition, and that the API is 'undocumented, may change'. This substantially enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior and risks, with no contradiction to 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 dense but each sentence earns its place: definition, mechanics, and critical usage warning. The 'IMPORTANT' label front-loads the highest-risk aspect, and the instructions are sequentially actionable. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutating, real funds, six undocumented params) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and risks well. However, the missing parameter definitions for game, side, and leverage leave some operational ambiguity. Still, the core usage and safety guidance are present, making it largely complete for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 explains 'usd' via 'Deposits usd', 'confirm' via the preview/confirm flow, and 'strike_price' via 'strike order', but completely omits 'game', 'side', and 'leverage'. For a financial tool with six parameters, this is a significant gap that leaves the agent without necessary guidance.

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 action: 'Place a Pacifica Print order via API', clearly identifying the resource and verb. It distinguishes itself from siblings like print_close, print_status, and print_quote by stating it is the first programmatic access and what the web UI does.

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?

Explicit usage workflow is provided: run evaluate_print and print_quote first, call with confirm=false to preview, then confirm=true only after user approval. This clearly states when to use the tool and the necessary precursor steps, setting it apart from related tools.

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