Modify Order

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description reinforces this with 'may affect real funds or account state', but omits operationally relevant behavior such as whether unspecified fields are preserved, whether the order loses queue priority, or how failures are surfaced.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the highest-value warning ('LIVE ACCOUNT ACTION') and the core purpose. The closing 'may affect real funds' slightly duplicates that warning but is not wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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 mutation with a nested body object and no output schema, the description should say what the call returns (e.g., the revised order) and whether the change is reversible. Those gaps are material, though the annotations and rich schema partly compensate.

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 the schema already documents every field including the nested price object, enum values for tif, and quantity decimals. The description only recaps three fields and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Modify an existing order in the marketplace') and enumerates changeable fields (price, quantity, time in force). It does not distinguish this from the sibling modify_multiple_orders, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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?

Usage is implied by 'modify an existing order' and the 'LIVE ACCOUNT ACTION' prefix signals real-money impact, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the single-vs-bulk alternative (modify_multiple_orders) or when to cancel and re-create instead.

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