cancel_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing beyond the verb. It does not mention that cancellation is irreversible, whether it works on partially filled orders, whether it requires category pairing, or what happens if the order is already gone.

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?

Three words is not conciseness but under-specification; there is no wasted text, but also no information to front-load. For a mutating tool with four undocumented parameters this is far too little.

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?

A destructive, unannotated, four-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions needs the description to compensate, and it provides none of that. An agent cannot call this correctly without guessing at identifier semantics.

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% across 4 parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Critically, it never explains the orderId vs. orderLinkId distinction or why category is required even though the identifier alone might suffice.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Cancel an order'), which is unambiguous against read siblings like get_open_orders and get_tickers. It does not, however, clarify scope (single order vs. by symbol vs. batch), which matters given the sibling place_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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as canceling all open orders or modifying an order. The agent must infer everything about invocation context from the name alone.

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