create_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does not disclose that creating an order is a mutating action with potential financial consequences, nor does it mention side effects like actual execution, the need for confirmation for large orders, or what happens on success/failure. The description is very thin on behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and immediately giving the most critical usage constraint. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how order_type (LIMIT/MARKET) affects price requirements, the meaning of time_in_force options, or the purpose of confirm_high_value_order and client_order_id. The schema covers these individually, but the description lacks high-level guidance on typical order scenarios, which is critical for a trading 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds clarity by restating the mutual exclusivity of quantity and order_amount and the US-only restriction, but this information is already present in the schema (e.g., order_amount says 'quantity와 둘 중 하나만 사용'). Since it does not add meaning beyond the schema, the baseline 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 '매수 또는 매도 주문을 생성합니다' (creates buy or sell orders), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like modify_order and cancel_order by focusing on new order creation. The additional note about quantity/order_amount further clarifies scope.

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 practical guidance on specifying either quantity or order_amount, and explicitly states that order_amount is for US stock market orders only. This helps the agent choose the right parameters, though it does not explicitly contrast with modify/cancel alternatives or mention preconditions like authentication.

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