futures_update_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention safety traits (e.g., idempotency, failure behavior, rate limits) or what happens to the order upon modification. The only behavioral hint is the Binance verification note, which is insufficient for a write operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with parenthetical notes. Every element serves a purpose: stating the action, mentioning modifiable fields, providing a key recommendation, and clarifying required fields. No superfluous text.

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 no output schema and 7 parameters, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It covers the core usage and a critical nuance (side+type requirement) but omits details like return values, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., order must be open). For a modification tool, more context would be beneficial.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds extra context: recommending side+type and clarifying that quantity can be omitted if only modifying price. This goes beyond the schema descriptions and provides practical guidance.

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 that the tool modifies a futures order, specifically price/quantity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like futures_order (create) and futures_cancel_order (cancel) by using the verb '修改' (modify). The resource and action are unambiguous.

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 usage advice: recommend passing side+type to avoid Binance verification failure, and notes that only orderId+symbol are required. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool compared to creating a new order or canceling and replacing.

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