cancel_twap_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool cancels a live order and its unfilled chunks, revealing its destructive nature. However, it lacks mention of side effects, error conditions, or idempotency.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds essential context. No unnecessary words.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and a key requirement. It could mention expected outputs or error scenarios, but overall it is adequate.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (orderId) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explicitly describe the parameter or its format, leaving the agent to infer its role from context. This is insufficient for a tool with no schema descriptions.

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 'Cancel a Pear Protocol TWAP order and all of its remaining unfilled chunks,' specifying a clear verb (Cancel), resource (TWAP order), and scope (all unfilled chunks). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'cancel_order' by focusing on TWAP orders.

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 mentions it is a WRITE operation and requires PEAR_TRADE_ENABLED=true, implying readiness. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'cancel_order' tool or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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