alpha_cancel_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a destructive action (cancels orders), specifies prerequisites (requires escrowAppId and orderOwner), and outlines outcomes (refunds USDC/tokens and ~0.957 ALGO collateral). This adds valuable context beyond the input schema, though it doesn't cover error conditions or rate limits.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by prerequisites and outcomes. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of a cancellation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, prerequisites, and outcomes. It could be more complete by explaining error cases or return values, but it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's role and effects in the system.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions 'escrowAppId and orderOwner' as required, which aligns with the schema but doesn't add meaning beyond it. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Cancel an open Alpha Arcade order'), identifies the resource ('Alpha Arcade order'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'alpha_amend_order' by focusing on cancellation rather than modification. It's precise and action-oriented.

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 implies usage for open orders (via 'Cancel an open Alpha Arcade order') and mentions required parameters ('Requires escrowAppId and orderOwner'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'alpha_amend_order' or 'alpha_get_open_orders'. It provides some context but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions.

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