cancel_trade

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary side effect (release of escrow) and the active-trade precondition. It does not address irreversibility in detail, but the word 'cancel' and the escrow release provide adequate transparency for a simple cancellation action.

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 one sentence, two clauses, with no extraneous words. It front-loads the action and the key condition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's simplicity (two well-documented parameters, no output schema, no nesting), the description adequately covers the action, the effect on escrow, and the precondition. There is no missing contextual information for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (tradeId and userId), covering 100% of the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool cancels an active trade and releases locked escrow. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_trades or get_offer.

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 explicitly notes that cancellation is only possible while the trade is active, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly exclude other states, so it stops short of full guidance.

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