cancel_all_rfq_quotes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without describing any side effects (e.g., whether it affects pending trades, irreversibility, permissions required, or confirmations). The minimal description is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core action. While it could include more detail, it has no unnecessary words and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for the action itself. However, it lacks typical usage context such as when to invoke this tool versus related tools, what happens after execution, and any constraints. The presence of many sibling tools suggests more context would be valuable.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema provides complete coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating the action, but since there are no parameters to clarify, a score of 3 is appropriate – the description does not detract but also does not enhance understanding.

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?

Description 'Cancel all open quotes' uses specific verb and resource, clearly indicating it cancels all open RFQ quotes. The tool name reinforces the RFQ context, distinguishing it from siblings like cancel_rfq_quote (cancels a single quote) and cancel_all_rfqs (cancels all requests for quotes, not the quotes themselves).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cancel_rfq_quote or cancel_all_rfqs. The description does not provide any context, prerequisites, or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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