kraken_edit_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Modify an existing order' without mentioning side effects (e.g., potential order replacement, cancellation semantics), authentication requirements, or failure conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description lacks essential behavioral context for a trading mutation tool. It does not explain that editing an order may involve cancel-and-replace logic, or warn about possible validation constraints. Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations), the description is too sparse to be considered complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all eight parameters. The description's mention of 'price, volume, or other execution parameters' adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Modify') and resource ('existing order'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like kraken_add_order and kraken_cancel_order. The scope is precise: updating price, volume, or other execution parameters on an already-existing order.

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 when an order already exists and needs changes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., cancel and re-add) or provide exclusions. The purpose is clear enough that a user could infer the usage scenario, but no direct guidance or alternatives are mentioned.

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