sell

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly warns that this places a real trade and says to use caution, which is the critical behavioral trait for a financial mutation. It does not cover order lifecycle or permission requirements, but the most important risk is disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the supported order types follow, and the risk warning is placed at the end for emphasis.

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 9-parameter order tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is lean but sufficient: it states the action, supported types, and real-trade risk, while the schema itself thoroughly documents parameters like amount, contracts, price, and time_in_force. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance about expected response or prerequisites, but the core invocation context is present.

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 input schema covers all 9 parameters with descriptive meanings, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond restating the order types already present in the schema's enum.

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 action as placing a sell order on Deribit and enumerates the four supported order types. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like buy, cancel_order, and edit_order because it explicitly names the sell order action.

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 purpose implicitly tells an agent to use this tool when placing a sell trade, and the warning 'places a real trade' conveys caution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the buy tool as the counterpart alternative, so the guidance is only implied.

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