create_order

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description highlights the real-money nature, environmental prerequisite, idempotency key behavior, and high-value order confirmation. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond what annotations convey.

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 well-structured, using line breaks for distinct rules. Every sentence adds critical information without fluff. It's appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 trading tool with conditional parameters and market-specific rules, the description covers prerequisites, mutual exclusions, formatting, idempotency, and high-value confirmations. The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. This is comprehensive given the tool's complexity.

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 0%, but the description explains several complex parameters in detail: quantity vs order_amount, price formatting rules, time_in_force options, client_order_id constraints, and confirm_high_value_order. It omits trivial params like symbol, side, order_type, and account_seq, which are self-explanatory from the schema, so the compensation is strong but not complete.

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 'Place a REAL-MONEY order', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like modify_order and cancel_order by being the tool for creating new orders.

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 clear usage context and constraints, such as 'Requires TOSS_ENABLE_TRADING=true', 'Provide exactly one of quantity/order_amount', and 'LIMIT requires price; MARKET must omit price'. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use alternative tools (e.g., modify_order or cancel_order), though the purpose is unambiguous.

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