hl_cancel_outcome_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a destructive mutation (cancellation) but doesn't state whether the cancellation is reversible, what permissions are required, whether the order must be open, or any rate-limit behavior. It briefly mentions two invocation paths but no behavioral traits beyond that.

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 concise sentences with no filler; the invocation paths are front-loaded after the purpose. Efficient but slightly under-informative about the computedData alternative.

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 no-annotation mutation tool with 8 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to cover authentication, side effects, error conditions, or the shapes of the two invocation modes, leaving significant gaps an agent would need to resolve.

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 0% and there are 8 parameters. The description names six of them (apiKey, walletAddress, sessionPrivateKey, outcomeId, coin, orderId) and introduces the computedData alternative, but omits dex and doesn't explain any parameter's format, expected values, or mutual exclusivity between the structured set and computedData.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel a HyperLiquid outcome-market order.' This clearly distinguishes it from cancellation siblings like cancel_perp_order and direct_cancel_order, though it doesn't explicitly name which sibling it is not.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus direct_cancel_order corresponding to outcome markets, nor any prerequisites such as authentication requirements. The description assumes the agent already knows the outcome-market context.

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