futopt_modify_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and returns a vague 'Modification result.' It does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., order must be in modifiable state), reversibility, or the meaning of modification types. This is a mutation tool with zero behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a straightforward parameter list and return line. It wastes no words but is a bit terse; still, it earns its place for a parameter-heavy 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?

With 15 parameters, 8 required, no annotations, and an output schema that is not shown here, the description is minimally adequate. It provides parameter names and one-liner definitions but omits critical details such as enum meanings, modification type semantics, ordering of operations, or example usage. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently use the tool without additional knowledge.

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?

The description enumerates all 15 parameters with brief human-readable semantics (e.g., 'Original order ID', 'Current remaining quantity', 'Second leg contract ID') that go beyond the schema's bare titles. However, some parameters like modify_type, price_type, and condition lack explanation of their enum values or defaults, so it doesn't fully compensate for the 0% 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 opens with 'Modify an existing futures/options order,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like futopt_new_order and futopt_cancel_order. The intent is unambiguous.

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 tool name and purpose ('modify an existing order'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions (e.g., cannot modify fully filled orders). It doesn't compare to futopt_cancel_order or futopt_new_order.

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