demand.cancel_watchCancel (deactivate) a standing want by id. Only your own watches can be cancelled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| watch_id | Yes | The watch id from demand.create_watch / demand.list_watches |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral constraint of ownership but does not disclose consequences like reversibility or side effects. For a cancel action, more transparency (e.g., 'This action cannot be undone') would improve the score.
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 no superfluous information. Every word earns its place.
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 simple cancellation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and ownership constraint. It lacks mention of error conditions or reversibility, but given the low complexity, it is mostly 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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The tool description adds no further parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 the action (cancel/deactivate) and the resource (a standing want/watch by id). The term 'standing want' is slightly inconsistent with the tool name 'cancel_watch', but the meaning is discernible. Distinguishes from siblings like 'create_watch' and 'list_watches'.
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 constraint 'Only your own watches can be cancelled' provides a usage condition, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to cancel vs. deactivate through other means). Usage is implied but not fully elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., create_want vs demand.create_want, get_want vs demand.get_want, and browse_wants vs search_listings vs search_products vs demand.search. Although descriptions attempt to differentiate, the presence of near-duplicates will likely confuse an agent.
Mix of naming conventions: some tools use 'demand.' prefix, others do not. Most follow verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_want, search_listings), but 'my_agent_profile' deviates. Inconsistent prefix usage reduces predictability.
18 tools is on the higher side but still within reasonable bounds for a commerce platform. However, several tools are redundant (e.g., create_want/demand.create_want), inflating the count unnecessarily.
Covers core demand-side workflows: creating/searching wants, listings, products, and outcome tracking. Missing update operations for wants and listings, but no critical dead ends for basic use cases.