modify_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions modifying 'existing open LIMIT order' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, rate limits, if modifications are atomic or partial, error conditions, or what happens if only price or quantity is provided. The HTTP endpoint reference adds some context but insufficient 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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys core purpose with no wasted words. The HTTP endpoint in parentheses provides useful technical context without disrupting readability. Perfectly front-loaded with essential information.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the what and scope but lacks behavioral context about permissions, side effects, error handling, and parameter dependencies that would be crucial for safe invocation.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond schema by emphasizing 'price or quantity' modification and specifying 'open LIMIT order' context, but doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., that order_id or client_order_id is needed to identify the order, or that price/quantity can be null for partial updates). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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 specific action ('Modify price or quantity'), target resource ('existing open LIMIT order'), and scope ('open LIMIT order') with the HTTP method context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'place_order' (create) and 'cancel_order' (delete) by focusing on modification of existing 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 implies usage for modifying existing open limit orders, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for market orders, closed orders, or creating new orders) or mention specific alternatives like 'cancel_order' + 'place_order' for more complex modifications. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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