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 adds one real behavioral fact — that it targets pending (not filled) orders — but omits permissions/auth requirements, error behavior, and which order types are modifiable. Minimum viable, not rich.

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?

Two tightly constructed sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the second sentence adds the differentiating benefit.

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 zero annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate on scope but thin on behavior: no auth/precondition info, no indication of what happens on rejection, and no guidance on mutually exclusive identifiers. Enough to call it, not enough to call it confidently.

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 all six parameters are already documented. The description only echoes price and quantity, adding no format, constraint, or precedence meaning beyond the schema (e.g., how orderId and origClientOrderId interact). Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Modify) and resource (an existing order) and pins the venue (Binance USDⓈ-M Futures). The phrase 'without canceling and recreating them' implicitly separates it from cancel-order and new-order, so an agent can route to it without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context: use it for updating price or quantity of pending orders. It also implies the alternative workflow (cancel + new order) it replaces. No explicit when-not or named alternatives, which keeps it out of the top band.

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