amend_order

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

The description mentions 'HIGH risk - requires confirmation', which aligns with annotations (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false). But it fails to specify what 'requires confirmation' means operationally (e.g., via a separate confirm_order tool) or what side effects occur (e.g., changes to order state, fees). Additional behavioral details beyond annotations are limited.

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 compact: one sentence of purpose plus a bullet-style Args list. No filler sentences. Every line adds value (purpose, risk, parameter definitions). Structure is front-loaded with key information.

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 tool has 9 parameters, 2 required, and an output schema exists, the description covers purpose, risk, and all parameters. However, it lacks guidance on when to amend vs. cancel/replace, error scenarios, or order state requirements. The risk warning hints at a confirmation workflow but doesn't detail it.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for all 9 parameters: e.g., 'Product type - spot, linear, inverse, option' for category, 'New order price' for price. This adds meaning beyond parameter names, though format constraints and examples are missing.

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 clearly states 'Amend an existing order' with a high-risk warning, which distinguishes it from siblings like place_order, cancel_order, and get_open_orders. The verb 'amend' and resource 'order' are specific, and the risk flag adds context.

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?

It provides usage context via the risk warning and specifies required parameters (category, symbol) and the condition that either orderId or orderLinkId is needed. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to amend versus cancel and replace, nor does it mention prerequisites like order status.

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