Derive MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the authentication requirement, which is valuable context. However, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is an atomic operation, what happens if some orders fail to cancel, or what the response format looks like.

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 efficient - just two sentences that communicate the core functionality, optional features, and authentication requirement with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. While it covers the basic purpose and authentication requirement, it doesn't address important aspects like error handling, response format, or the irreversible nature of order cancellation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the optional filtering capability, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the 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 clearly states the specific action ('Cancel all open orders') and target resource ('for a subaccount'), with optional filtering capabilities. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'cancel_order' tool by handling multiple orders rather than a single 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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Cancel all open orders for a subaccount') and mentions optional filtering parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or directly compare it to alternatives like 'cancel_order' for single-order cancellation.

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