place_oco_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that one order cancellation triggers the other, that it uses a single orderList/oco call, and that stop_limit_price must be lower than stop_price. It does not discuss potential failure modes, permissions, or partial-fill behavior, but the core behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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, explaining the purpose and key constraints in a few tight sentences. Every sentence adds value—no filler or 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 complexity of a 9-parameter OCO order and no output schema, the description covers the essential mechanics, the rationale for using the tool, and parameter relationships. It does not describe response format or error conditions, but these are less critical for correct invocation.

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 description adds significant meaning for price-related parameters (price=TP, stop_price=stop trigger, stop_limit_price=stop filled limit) and the constraint that stop_limit_price < stop_price. However, it leaves account_id, idempotency_key, and request_id unexplained, and schema coverage is only 56%, so the description does not fully compensate for all parameters.

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 identifies the tool as placing a spot OCO order with take-profit (LIMIT) and stop-loss-limit (STOP_LOSS_LIMIT) in a single order list. It distinguishes itself from alternative approaches by explaining the 'true OCO' mechanism and why separate SL+TP orders are impossible on this exchange.

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 explains the specific use case: when both a take-profit and stop-loss are needed for the same position, and why separate orders would conflict (stealing balance). It implies this tool should be used instead of placing separate SL+TP orders, though it does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools like place_order for single-order scenarios.

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