update_ticker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context beyond basic functionality by mentioning that it 'bulk-update all open orders' and 'Flags stop orders for manual review,' which are important behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens to non-open orders, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core actions and a key behavioral note. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a tool that performs bulk updates and flags orders for review, with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, side effects beyond the mentioned flagging, and how it interacts with other tools in the sibling list, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its full context.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the parameters 'old_symbol', 'new_symbol', or 'reason' beyond what the schema provides (e.g., the enum values for 'reason'). The description mentions renaming a symbol and updating orders, which hints at the purpose of 'old_symbol' and 'new_symbol', but adds minimal semantic value, failing to fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Rename a symbol' and 'bulk-update all open orders') and identifies the resource ('symbol' and 'open orders'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'check_ticker' or 'load_ticker' by focusing on updates rather than queries or loading. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternatives like 'modify_algo' or 'cancel_replace' in the sibling list.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that 'Flags stop orders for manual review,' which implies a specific behavior but doesn't clarify when this tool is appropriate compared to other order-related tools like 'cancel_replace' or 'modify_algo'. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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