cancel_stableswap_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses that the tool produces an unsigned transaction in CBOR hex for client-side signing, which is critical behavioral information for an agent. It misses some details like prerequisites or failure modes, but the key non-obvious behavior is clearly stated.

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 core action is front-loaded, and the important return behavior is included compactly without redundancy.

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 simple 3-parameter cancellation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential context: what it cancels, what happens to funds, and the format of the returned transaction. It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning broadcasting requirements or prerequisite conditions, but it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 three parameters (address, orderTxHash, orderOutputIndex) clearly. The description adds no parameter-specific nuance beyond the overall purpose, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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'), the resource ('an outstanding stableswap order'), and the effect ('reclaim funds'). The domain-specific resource name distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_rob, making the tool's identity 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 intended use is implied: use this when you have an outstanding stableswap order you want to cancel and reclaim funds. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives, relying on the tool's name and description to convey the context.

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