cancel_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dry_run default (important for safety), and mentions account gating rules. However, it does not state what happens in live mode, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response format is. For a mutation tool, this is a moderate gap, but the dry_run default is a significant behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences that are dense with purposeful information: the core action, the filter, the critical default, and the context/usage. Every phrase earns its place, and the most important detail (dry_run default) is mentioned early.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, filter, default behavior, and account gating. It does not mention return values or error semantics, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of situational context (panic stop), it is reasonably complete. A more detailed description could note expected outcome, but this is adequate.

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 67% (dry_run is not described in the schema). The description adds value by specifying the dry_run default and explaining the account scope rules more clearly than the schema. It also clarifies that symbol=0 means 'all symbols'. These details go beyond the schema's basic descriptions, partially compensating for the undocumented dry_run parameter.

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 every open order') and the optional filter ('optionally filtered by symbol'), with a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from the sibling cancel_order by implying batch scope and positions itself relative to set_kill_switch, making its role unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool ('panic stop' after set_kill_switch) and explains the account gating variation from place_order. It does not explicitly contrast with cancel_order, but the phrase 'cancel every open order' makes the broad-vs-single distinction clear. The guidance is solid but could be more explicit about not using it 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.