place-futures-market-order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Place a futures market order' implies a financial transaction with real-world consequences, but the description provides zero information about authentication requirements (though parameters include apiKey/secret), rate limits, execution guarantees, error conditions, or what happens when the order executes. This is dangerously inadequate for a tool that could execute financial trades.

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 states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for such a straightforward statement of purpose.

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 complex financial trading tool with 8 parameters (including authentication credentials), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'futures market order' entails, what happens after placement, potential risks, or expected outcomes. The agent would have insufficient context to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance parameter 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 action ('place') and resource ('futures market order'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'place-market-order' which appears to be a similar but potentially different tool (spot vs futures). The description is specific but lacks sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'place-market-order' and various configuration tools (set-leverage, set-margin-mode, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific futures market order tool should be selected over other order placement or configuration tools.

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