Cancel a specific open perpetual order on HyperLiquid using the asset symbol and order ID.
Cancel a specific open perp order on HyperLiquid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | Yes | Asset symbol | |
| apiKey | Yes | GDEX API key for AES encryption | |
| orderId | Yes | Order ID to cancel | |
| walletAddress | Yes | Control wallet address | |
| sessionPrivateKey | Yes | Session private key from sign-in |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.11.3Does 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 does not meet it. It never states that cancellation is irreversible, that the order must still be open, or that a valid session private key and API key are required to authorize the call.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the resource and scope stated immediately. It is appropriately sized, though it is brief enough that it omits useful detail rather than wasting words.
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 mutation with five required auth-carrying parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits auth/session requirements, failure modes, and what the result confirms, leaving the agent under-informed before an irreversible action.
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% with all five parameters documented in the schema itself, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, e.g. order ID format or how coin relates to orderId.
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 a specific open perp order') scoped to HyperLiquid, and the word 'specific' implicitly contrasts with cancel_all_perp_orders. It does not name that sibling or explain how it differs from direct_cancel_order, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as cancel_all_perp_orders or direct_cancel_order. The agent is left to infer that this applies only to open perp orders on HyperLiquid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.