place_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden and it partially does: it discloses that placing an order is a live action and that certain parameters only apply to bracket/ROBO orders. However, it does not describe execution side effects, authentication requirements, idempotency, or failure behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a one-line purpose followed by a scannable field-value list. Every line conveys a distinct constraint or value set, so nothing feels redundant or padded.

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 16-parameter order-placement tool with no annotations, the description supplies essential enums and conditional dependencies but omits the order lifecycle (e.g., what response/order ID is returned, whether orders can be placed outside market hours) and leaves ordertag and disclosedquantity semantically unaddressed. It is enough to construct a valid request with some domain knowledge, but not fully self-sufficient.

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 property descriptions are absent (0% coverage), and the description compensates by enumerating valid values for variety, transactiontype, exchange, ordertype, producttype, and duration, and by explaining conditional requirements for price, triggerprice, squareoff, stoploss, and trailingStopLoss. It does not explicitly define tradingsymbol, symboltoken, quantity, ordertag, and disclosedquantity, but most of those are self-explanatory from their names.

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 opening phrase 'Place an order' identifies a specific action on a specific resource, making the core purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like modify_order or cancel_order, but the verb-plus-resource phrasing is enough for an agent to distinguish this from those tools.

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 conditional parameter rules (e.g., price/triggerprice required for LIMIT/STOPLOSS; squareoff/stoploss/trailingStopLoss only for ROBO), but it gives no guidance on when to choose place_order versus alternatives such as convert_position or gtt_create_rule. No exclusions or alternative-selection conditions are stated.

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