改单

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

Annotations already signal destructive behavior, and the description adds useful constraints: only unfilled orders and only LIMIT type are elligate for modification. It does not disclose deeper behavior such as whether existing order is replaced/caneled or how failures handled, but it meaningfully extends the annotations.

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?

One sentence delivers the essential scope and constraint without filler. The key function and the orderId/origClientOrderId exclusivity are front-loaded, making the definition easy and fast to parse.

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 with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition is incomplete. It does not describe what happens after a successful modification, whether it replaces or cancels, possible failures, or how to know which side of the order to adjust. An agent would need substantial inferred knowledge to call it correctly.

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 schema description covers 0% of parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that orderId and origClientOrderId are mutually exclusive, but it does not explain the meaning of symbol, side, quantity, or price beyond their raw schema names and constraints. This leaves significant semantics implied.

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 states a specific action ('modify unfilled orders') and an explicit scope restriction ('LIMIT only'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from place/cancel/get sibling tools and tells an agent exactly what resource it affects.

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 when to use the tool by restricting modifications to unfilled LIMIT orders, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over trading_place_order, trading_cancel_order, or other alternatives. The scope is helpful but limited.

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