Update an existing pending order's price and quantity using its order ID, optionally changing its side.
修改一个挂单的价格和数量。
Args: symbol: 交易对 oid: 要修改的订单 ID price: 新价格 amount: 新数量 side: 新方向（可选，不提供则保持原方向）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| oid | Yes | ||
| side | No | ||
| price | Yes | ||
| amount | Yes | ||
| symbol | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the modification action and the optional side behavior, but does not disclose consequences, prerequisites, whether the original order is replaced, or any side effects. For a mutating tool, this is a significant gap.
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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence in the Args list adds meaning for a parameter. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema exists.
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?
All parameters are documented and an output schema is present, but the tool lacks usage guidance and behavioral details around order modification effects or error conditions. It is adequate for calling the tool, yet leaves important context to inference.
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%, and the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter: symbol is the trading pair, oid is the order ID, price and amount are the new values, and side is an optional new direction with the default behavior stated.
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 opening sentence clearly states a specific verb ('修改' / modify) and resource ('挂单' / open order), specifying price and quantity as the modified fields. The optional side argument is documented in the Args list, so the full scope of behavior is covered. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_order and cancel_order.
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: it is for modifying an existing open order, not for creating or canceling one. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mention of alternative tools such as cancel_order + create_order.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.