pionex_orders_cancel_all_ordersCancels all open orders for a given trading pair symbol. Use it to clear pending orders when adjusting strategy or managing risk exposure.
Cancel all orders
Cancel all open orders for a symbol. Weight: 1.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Trading pair symbol |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds useful context by specifying that all open orders for a symbol are removed and noting the weight cost, but says nothing about partial-failure behavior or irreversibility beyond what the annotations imply.
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?
Extremely compact and front-loaded: scope first, then the rate-limit weight. The only waste is the redundant repetition of the title 'Cancel all orders' before the substantive sentence.
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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, and a 100%-documented parameter, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly. Only the handling of partial cancellations or the absence of orders to cancel is unaddressed.
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% and there is a single required 'symbol' parameter, so the schema fully documents the input. The description only echoes that the cancel is scoped to a symbol and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Cancel all open orders') plus the scope constrained by 'for a symbol', which distinguishes it in spirit from the singular pionex_orders_cancel_order. It never names that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the all-vs-one distinction from the tool name alone.
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?
Usage is implied by 'all open orders for a symbol', and the 'Weight: 1' note hints at rate-limit cost, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over pionex_orders_cancel_order or any prerequisite/auth guidance. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.