futopt_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 only states that it returns 'Cancellation confirmation,' which is vague. It does not mention that cancellation is irreversible, what permissions are required, whether it cancels the entire order or a partial quantity, or what happens if the order is already matched. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 purpose, then follows a clean Args/Returns structure. It is appropriately sized for the parameter count and contains no filler. Every line serves a purpose, even if some definitions are weak, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 has 11 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (implied, but return details are not described), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the cancellation semantics (full vs partial), the meaning of 'current_quantity' vs 'quantity', or the structure of the 'Cancellation confirmation.' For a complex financial tool, this leaves too many important questions unanswered.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists all 11 parameters but many definitions are tautological (e.g., 'order_number: Order number', 'product_type: Product type'). It does add some value with 'current_quantity: Current remaining quantity' and 'trade_date: Trading date (defaults to today)', but several parameters like 'pre_order: Pre-order flag' remain unclear. The description fails to clarify the relationships between quantity, current_quantity, and matched_quantity, which are crucial for understanding cancellation semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel an existing futures/options order.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like futopt_new_order, futopt_modify_order, and stock_cancel_order, which operate on different resources or actions. The futures/options qualifier disambiguates from the stock cancel tool.

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 usage context is implied by the name and the one-line purpose, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., order must exist), and no mention of edge cases like partial cancellation or already-filled orders. A clear 'when to use' statement would have raised this to a 4 or 5.

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