order_submit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention that this places real financial orders, that dry_run is available for simulation, or any idempotency/error behavior. This is a high-stakes tool, so the lack of caution is significant.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the tool's action and scope, though the extreme brevity leaves out critical usage details. For conciseness, it is well-structured.

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 (20 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It lists order types but lacks any guidance on parameter selection, risk, or workflow. The output schema doesn't reduce the need for usage context.

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 has 20 parameters with zero descriptions in the schema itself, so the description must compensate. It merely lists order types without explaining how to configure them—e.g., which parameters are needed for a stop-limit vs. trailing, the difference between qty and notional, or the meaning of order_class and time_in_force. This adds no parameter-level value.

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 uses the specific verb 'Submit' and identifies the resource 'orders', explicitly enumerating eight order types (market, limit, stop, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like preview_order, order_cancel, and order_replace, which serve different actions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention preview_order for testing, order_cancel for cancellations, or any prerequisites like account permissions or safety checks. The only implicit hint is the word 'Submit'.

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