place_limit_order

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond by detailing the two-step submit-confirm exchange, the lack of confirmation persistence, the meaning of on_market, and the possibility of a silent failure. This critical context prevents the user from assuming a successful exchange means a placed order.

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 somewhat long but every sentence carries essential risk and workflow information. It is front-loaded with the most critical warning ('REAL limit order with real money'), followed by alternative guidance, execution mechanics, verification instructions, and parameter clarification. No fluff 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 that this is a destructive, real-money tool with a non-trivial two-step exchange protocol, the description covers all essential aspects: prerequisite (env var), safer alternative, behavioral nuances, verification steps, and client-side order_id semantics. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, so the description is complete for its purpose.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for all parameters, but it only explains order_id (client-side reference, generated if omitted). Symbol, side, quantity, and price are left entirely to their names and schema types, which may be insufficient for a real-money trading tool. The description misses an opportunity to clarify units, side implications, or price precision.

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 explicitly states 'Place a REAL limit order with real money' and differentiates from siblings like preview_limit_order by emphasizing there is no simulation mode. The verb 'place' and resource 'limit order' are specific, and the warning about real money makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Prefer preview_limit_order first' as a safer alternative, and advises verifying with get_orders after execution. It also states the precondition that the server must run with DIRECTA_ENABLE_ORDERS=true, covering both when to use and when to avoid.

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