Modify Multiple Orders

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses cancel-replace semantics, all-or-nothing gateway validation, that unknown orderIds may be silently ignored by the exchange, and that modifiedOrderIds is an echo rather than an execution confirmation. These are exactly the failure modes an agent needs for a destructive, non-idempotent live-trading call.

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 risk warning is correctly front-loaded, but the final sentence ("Returned IDs may not confirm exchange execution; verify the outcome") restates the earlier modifiedOrderIds-is-an-echo sentence, and "may affect real funds" duplicates the LIVE ACCOUNT ACTION header. Two sentences of the six are redundant.

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 destructive live-trading tool with a deeply nested schema and no output schema, it covers atomicity, silent-ignore behavior, and result-verification caveats. It stops short of noting whether exchange-side per-entry failures can yield partial success or what permissions/rate limits apply.

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% and the nested body/orders shape is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the batch cardinality (already encoded as minItems/maxItems) and the per-entry cancel-replace meaning; it adds no field-level guidance such as which fields are optional or what happens to omitted fields.

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 and resource with scope: "Modify up to 20 existing orders in a single request." The batch limit and the cancel-replace forwarding rule distinguish it from the singular modify_order and from create_multiple_orders without needing to open 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?

The "LIVE ACCOUNT ACTION" prefix and the 20-order cap make the intended context clear: real-money batch modification. It never explicitly routes the agent away from this tool (e.g., "use modify_order for a single order" or "use cancel_multiple_orders to only cancel"), so there are no stated exclusions.

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