Jupiter Cancel Limit Order

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by stating it creates an unsigned transaction, implying the cancellation is not executed immediately. This complements the annotations but does not reveal additional behaviors like permissions or error states.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence provides useful context but is somewhat generic. No unnecessary repetition.

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 annotations, output schema, and parameter documentation, the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity. It explains the transactional nature and the broader workflow, though it could mention handling of invalid orders.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 that the tool creates an unsigned transaction to cancel a specific limit order. The verb 'cancel' and resource 'limit order' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'jupiter_cancelLimitOrders' (plural), though the singular suggests a single order.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jupiter_cancelLimitOrders or jupiter_executeOrder. It only gives general context about Jupiter tools in SAP MCP, not specific usage criteria or exclusions.

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