cancel_perp_order

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the destructive write profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the word 'open' and says nothing about irreversibility, partial failure, whether an unknown orderId errors or no-ops, or the auth/session requirements implied by the four credential parameters.

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 zero waste; nothing is buried or redundant. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

This is a destructive, open-world mutation with six parameters including four credential fields and no output schema. The description omits how credentials are supplied, what a successful cancellation returns, and how errors or already-filled orders are handled — significant gaps for a cancel operation.

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%, including the accountRef/credential parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description contributes no additional meaning about coin formatting, orderId provenance, or how credential parameters combine — 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 (cancel) and resource (a single open perp order) scoped to HyperLiquid, which separates it from cancel_all_perp_orders and update_order by name alone. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. An agent must infer on its own that this is for a single order while cancel_all_perp_orders handles bulk, and that the order must still be open.

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