modify_pending_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about permission requirements, what happens if the order has already triggered, whether omitted fields are left untouched, or the result of the call for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding and the actionable fields stated up front. It is terse rather than bloated, though the terseness borders on under-specification.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient: it never explains the required ticket, the update semantics of optional fields, or failure conditions.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. It names price/SL/TP but omits the required 'ticket' parameter entirely and gives no units, format, or semantics for null/omitted values, which matters heavily for a partial-update tool.

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?

States a specific verb (change/modify) and resource (pending order) and enumerates the mutable fields (price, SL, TP). It implicitly distinguishes itself from modify_position and cancel_pending_order by scoping to pending orders, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the 'pending order' scope, but there is no statement of when to use this vs. modify_position or cancel_pending_order, and no prerequisites (e.g., order must not yet be triggered).

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