place_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 mentions an environment variable requirement, which is useful context, but fails to describe critical traits such as whether this is a destructive/mutative operation (likely yes, given 'place'), what permissions or authentication are needed, potential rate limits, or the expected response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a necessary prerequisite. There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (a trading order placement with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like mutation effects, error handling, or return values, and doesn't fully guide usage relative to siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to confidently invoke this tool in a trading environment.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying 'contract' format or 'order_type' meanings. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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 verb 'place' and the resource 'trading order', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'cancel_order' or 'list_orders', which would require mentioning it's for creating new orders rather than modifying or viewing existing ones.

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 a prerequisite ('requires SHIOAJI_TRADING_ENABLED=true'), which gives some context for when to use it. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'cancel_order' or how it relates to other trading tools, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than fully clarified.

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