Replace Order

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

It discloses the most important runtime behavior: calls are dry runs unless a confirmation_code is supplied, nothing reaches the exchange without execute, the code is order-specific, and user confirmation is mandatory before quoting it back. This adds substantial context beyond the annotations and aligns with the destructive/open-world hints; the single-use confirmation model also supports the idempotentHint by preventing duplicate application.

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 front-loads the core purpose and then devotes every sentence to safety-critical protocol. There is no filler or redundancy; the length is justified by the destructive, confirmation-gated behavior.

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 an 8-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the success return, the dry-run preview/confirmation_code, the execution condition, and eligibility constraints. The order-type specifics are already in the parameter descriptions, so nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 documents every parameter's meaning and order-type constraints. The prose adds only a high-level field list and does not amplify or correct the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 opens with a specific action and scope: 'Modify an open order's quantity, price, trigger_price, or trailing params.' This clearly distinguishes it from submit_order (creation) and cancel_order (deletion), and it does not merely restate the title 'Replace 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?

It gives explicit eligibility constraints ('Only open/pending orders can be modified') and a mandatory dry-run-then-confirm workflow. It does not name alternative tools such as cancel_order or submit_order for cases where replacement is inappropriate, so it stops short of 5.

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