cancel_all_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs cancellations in parallel for efficiency, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential risks (e.g., irreversible actions), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences, both of which add essential information. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides crucial parameter context with zero wasted 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 that this is a potentially destructive trading operation with no annotations but with a complete input schema and output schema available, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter behavior well. However, it could benefit from more explicit warnings about the irreversible nature of order cancellations in a trading context.

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 description adds meaningful context about the 'source' parameter's default value ('all') and clarifies that it cancels both regular and algo orders in parallel when using 'all'. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the description provides additional operational insight beyond the schema's enum 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 clearly states the specific action ('Cancel all open orders') and resource ('for a symbol'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'cancel_order' tool which handles individual orders. It precisely defines the scope of the operation.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool (to cancel all open orders for a symbol) and mentions the 'source' parameter options, but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to alternatives like 'cancel_order' for single-order cancellation.

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