send_live_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses mutation ('Mutating'), gating ('protected and disabled by default'), real-money consequence, and the outcome vocabulary returned (approval, acknowledged/refused/unknown). It stops short of permission or idempotency details, but covers the critical risk profile.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The risk-relevant facts (real money, mutating, disabled by default) appear before the return-value note.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the nested route schema is fully documented. The description supplies the safety and enablement context an agent needs. Minor gap: no mention of preconditions for enabling the tool or of failure/refusal causes.

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% and every field, including the nested destination.route, is documented in-schema with venue-specific requirements. The description adds nothing about parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb chain and resource: 'Check, hold and send an order to a live venue, with real money.' The live/real-money framing separates it from send_paper_order, though the boundary with the sibling submit_order is left implicit.

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?

'with real money' and 'disabled by default' imply when this is appropriate versus the paper variant, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to check_order, submit_order, or confirm_execution.

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