place_limit_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds crucial context: 'size' is number of tokens (not dollar value) with a conversion example, explains reduce_only semantics, and specifies the client_order_id hex format. It omits some operational details (e.g., order lifecycle, margin requirements), but covers the most critical behavioral nuances.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a clear purpose sentence, a concise argument list, a highlighted 'IMPORTANT' pitfall with a concrete example, and a brief pointer to an alternative. Every sentence serves a purpose, keeping it appropriately sized despite its length.

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 6-parameter trading tool with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameters, provides a real-world conversion example, flags the most common user error (size vs. dollar value), and references the correct alternative for TP/SL. The presence of an output schema further covers return-value expectations, making this contextually sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains every parameter: coin as trading pair, side as buy/sell, size as token count (with explicit warning against dollar value), price as per-token limit price, reduce_only as position-reduction-only, and client_order_id as an optional 128-bit hex string. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 basic limit order (for opening new positions or manual closing)', specifying both the action and the scope. This distinguishes it from market orders, bracket orders, and TP/SL tools, making the purpose explicit and specific.

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 explicitly names one alternative: 'For setting take profit/stop loss on existing positions, use set_take_profit_stop_loss instead.' It also implies usage for opening or manually closing positions, but does not contrast with market open/close or bracket order tools, so guidance is not fully exhaustive.

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