order_replace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates a pending order and returns a new order ID, which hints at a replace workflow. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., cancellation of the original order), preconditions, permissions, or rate limits, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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 that clearly conveys the action, target, and return value. There is no filler or redundant 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 9 parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits which fields can be replaced, workflow implications of a new order ID, and conditions for safe use. Although an output schema exists, the description itself leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the full context of the operation.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level meaning. It only refers to 'selected fields' without naming qty, stop_price, limit_price, time_in_force, etc., so the agent must rely on parameter names alone. This fails to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Replace' with a clear resource 'pending order' and explicitly states the return value ('new order id'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like order_submit (create) and order_cancel (cancel) by focusing on mutation of an existing pending 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 for modifying fields on a pending order, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for non-pending orders or as an alternative to cancel/re-submit). No exclusions or contextual comparisons are provided.

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