place_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: STOP_LOSS_LIMIT trigger semantics, idempotency-key guarantee against duplicate orders, network-timeout reconciliation from Binance, and constant validation checks. This goes well beyond schema and covers key side effects.

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?

Four sentences are dense with valuable information, starting with core action then expanding into critical behaviors. No filler, though the sentence about validation checks is somewhat vague and could be trimmed or made more specific.

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?

Tool is complex with 9 params, 3 order types, and idempotency, and there is no output schema or annotations. Description covers execution semantics and failure handling, but it does not describe what the caller receives on success/failure (e.g., order ID, status, error format). This missing return-contract information is a notable gap.

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 only 44%, but the description compensates by explaining order_type values, the price/stop_price relationship for STOP_LOSS_LIMIT, and the semantic role of idempotency_key. It also clarifies that quantity is in base asset, adding significant meaning beyond the bare enum/type definitions.

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?

Description opens with 'Tek hesapta doğrudan emir gönderir' (sends direct order on a single account), clearly identifying the action and resource. It lists supported order types and quantity semantics. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like place_oco_order to differentiate, so not a 5.

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 STOP_LOSS_LIMIT as spot stop protection and notes it works even when daemon is off, which implies a use case for that order type. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs MARKET/LIMIT or vs place_oco_order, and no prerequisites such as account or balance requirements.

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