edit_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses atomic cancel-replace semantics, a pre-trade margin check on the replacement, a liquidation-order exclusion, credential requirements, and warns that this touches a REAL order on the matching engine. It stops short of stating consequences such as loss of queue/time priority or failure modes.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its mechanism, followed by requirements and constraints. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers authentication, atomicity, validation, and exclusions adequately. It omits what a rejected replacement does to the original resting order and does not hint at the response shape, which leaves a small gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a rule the schema does not encode: only order_id and market_id are marked required, yet the text imposes a conditional requirement that at least one of price or size be supplied. That is genuine added meaning over the structured fields.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Amend a resting order's price and/or size') and characterizes the mechanism as 'one atomic cancel-replace operation', which separates it from create_order, cancel_order, and batch siblings. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Provides explicit constraints on use: at least one of price/size required, liquidation orders cannot be amended, and API credentials are required. It does not name an alternative tool or say when to prefer a cancel+create over an amend, but the preconditions are clear.

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