kraken_add_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Execute a buy or sell order,' which implies a trade action but does not warn about financial risk, the irreversible nature of real orders, the availability of a validation mode (validate parameter), or authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool that moves funds.

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, clear sentence with no redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately understandable. Fewer words would hurt clarity; this is appropriately sized.

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?

Despite having a rich schema and output schema, the description is far too minimal for a complex trading tool. It does not explain the different order types (market, limit, etc.), the validate option, or the risks of executing a live trade. An agent would lack the context needed to safely invoke order placement without external knowledge.

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 provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the description need not add more. It adds no extra context beyond the schema, but the schema already fully documents all 11 parameters, including enums for ordertype, type, and timeinforce. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function with a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('buy or sell order'), placing it in the context of the Kraken exchange. It differentiates from sibling tools like kraken_cancel_order and kraken_edit_order by focusing on order placement, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kraken_edit_order or kraken_cancel_order. There is no mention of prerequisites, order type selection, or any exclusions. This lacks even implied usage context for an AI agent deciding between multiple order-related tools.

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