edgex_place_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key restriction (limit-only during market closure for stocks) and the confirmation requirement, but does not describe consequences of placing an order (e.g., funds locked, order lifecycle, potential errors) or return behavior. This is partial disclosure, not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. It includes a condition and a critical warning without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema, no annotations) and its high-stakes nature (placing financial orders), the description is too sparse. It does not explain order type selection rationale, TP/SL interaction, expected response, failure modes, or what the user should confirm. This is a significant gap for a transaction-executing tool.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for all parameters, including notes like 'required for limit orders' in the price field. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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: 'Place a limit or market order.' This is a specific verb (place) with a resource (order) and distinguishes it from sibling tools that are all read/cancel/set operations. Even without the name, the description identifies the core action precisely.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'For stock contracts during market closure, only limit orders are allowed' and 'ALWAYS confirm with the user before calling this tool.' It gives a conditional rule for order type selection and a mandatory user confirmation step, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (though no alternative order-placing tool exists among siblings).

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