okx_amend_order

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits (e.g., whether it partially updates or replaces, required order state, error conditions). It only states 'L:WRITE' which is minimal. No details about side effects, idempotency, or restrictions are provided.

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 short but cryptic. It fails to front-load useful information and the structure is poor, with an unexplainable instruction to call agent_catalog. Conciseness without completeness is not valuable.

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 amending a trading order (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the update semantics, prerequisites, or potential errors, making it insufficient for correct invocation.

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% with basic descriptions in Chinese (e.g., 'new order price', 'order ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 relies on the name 'amend_order' to imply purpose, but the text '[L:WRITE] CAT:[交易]' only vaguely indicates it's a write operation in trading. It does not explicitly state that it modifies an existing order's price or quantity, leaving ambiguity.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like okx_amend_batch_orders or okx_cancel_order combined with okx_place_order. The instruction '请先调用 agent_catalog' is cryptic and does not clarify the context or prerequisites.

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