kite-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the 'pending' status requirement, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits details about partial fills, rejection reasons, or atomicity guarantees expected in trading systems.

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?

Extremely concise at four words. Every word carries necessary information (action, target, status constraint). However, the brevity results in significant underspecification for a financial mutation tool with six parameters.

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?

Inadequate for the complexity level. With six parameters, zero schema coverage, mutation semantics, and an output schema present, the description should detail updatable fields, validation rules, or error conditions. It does not mention what successful modification returns or side effects (e.g., order priority reset in queue).

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description fails to compensate. It does not explain that all parameters except order_id are optional updates, nor clarify trading-specific terms like 'variety' or 'trigger_price', or the behavior when null is passed (no-change vs reset).

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 action (modify) and resource (pending order), adding the 'pending' constraint which clarifies scope. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling cancel_order (when to modify vs cancel) or differentiate from place_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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus cancel_order or place_order. No mention of preconditions (e.g., order must be open/pending) or that modifications may fail if order fills before execution.

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