modify_order

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

No annotation are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Modify an active trading order' but does not explain whether the change is applied in place, whether it cancels and replaces the order, what happens if the order is already filled or canceled, or whether any confirmation or response is returned.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words and the core action and scope are immediately clear. The parenthetical field list is compact and does not repeat schema text verbatim.

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 in a trading context, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks usage alternatives, behavioral side effects, order-status constraints, and any indication of what happens on success or failure, leaving an agent to guess important operational details.

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?

Since the schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, the description does not need to explain parameter syntax. It does add a useful high-level grouping of the editable fields, but it does not provide any additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Modify'), a specific resource ('active trading order'), and lists the modifiable fields ('qty / price / stop_price'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling order tools like place_order, cancel_order, and close_position.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state 'for new orders use place_order' or 'to remove an order use cancel_order', and it does not mention prerequisites or conditions such as order status beyond the word 'active'.

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