place_trade

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions the tool can fail and return an error message, but doesn't disclose permissions required, rate limits, whether trades are irreversible, confirmation steps, or typical response structure beyond 'stringified JSON'. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with clear sections (purpose, parameters, returns) and uses bullet points for readability. It's appropriately sized at 4 sentences, though the parameter explanations could be more detailed without sacrificing conciseness. No redundant information is present.

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 trade execution tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., risk warnings, idempotency), detailed parameter validation, and output examples. Siblings include fetch_balance and fetch_market_data, suggesting this tool should reference them for prerequisites, but it doesn't.

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 but only partially does. It explains pair format (e.g., 'BTC/USDT'), side values ('buy' or 'sell'), and stake_amount meaning ('Amount to trade in the stake currency'), adding useful semantics. However, it doesn't clarify units for stake_amount (e.g., USD vs. base currency) or validate pair syntax, leaving gaps given the low schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Place') and resource ('trade'), specifying it handles buy or sell operations. It distinguishes from siblings like fetch_trades (which retrieves) or run_backtest (which simulates), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential trade-related tools not present in the sibling list.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing sufficient balance), exclusions (e.g., market hours), or comparisons to siblings like start_bot (which might automate trading). Usage is implied only by the purpose statement.

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