update_ticker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that stop orders are flagged for manual review, indicating they are not automatically updated. However, it does not explain what happens to other order types, whether the rename is permanent, or any potential side effects or validation errors. More details would improve 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 extremely concise with only two sentences. It front-loads the main action and adds a critical behavioral note. No unnecessary words, and every sentence provides distinct value.

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 renames a symbol and bulk-updates all open orders, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the main functionality and a notable exception (stop orders). However, it lacks details on reversibility, output, prerequisites (e.g., need to halt trading), and the scope of 'all open orders'. Missing output schema and annotations increase the burden, which is only partially met.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should add meaning to parameters. The description mentions 'rename a symbol', which maps to old_symbol and new_symbol, but provides no further context (e.g., format, case sensitivity). The 'reason' parameter is not mentioned at all, and the enum values are not explained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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' and 'bulk-update') and resources ('symbol', 'open orders'). It distinguishes from siblings like check_ticker (read-only) and send_order (new orders) by highlighting the bulk update of existing orders. The additional detail about flagging stop orders for manual review adds specificity.

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 implies usage for renaming symbols and updating orders, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts (e.g., corporate actions). The presence of a reason enum hints at use cases but is not expanded upon.

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