buildOrder

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

The description discloses that the tool does not submit the order, it just builds the payload. This aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true) and adds context about the return value (signed order/request body). It is transparent about the behavior, though annotations already cover idempotency.

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, well-structured sentence that instantly conveys the core purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, earning the maximum score.

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 tool with 13 parameters and a nested object, the description is brief but sufficient given the detailed schema. It explains the return value (exchange-native signed order/request body) and typical use cases. It could mention that output format varies by exchange, but overall it is complete enough.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds overall context but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. A score of 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 builds an order payload without submitting it, distinguishing it from submission siblings like submitOrder and createOrder. It specifies the purpose (inspection, forwarding, deferred submission) and the resource (order payload).

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 tells when to use the tool (for inspection, forwarding, or deferred submission) and implies when not to use it (when actual submission is needed, use submitOrder). It references the sibling submitOrder explicitly. However, it could be more explicit about when to choose this over other order-related tools.

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