stop_strategy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the destructive scope (cancelling all open orders for a pair) and the downstream effect (stopping a running grid strategy). It does not discuss reversibility, but the main behavioral traits are explicit.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The action and object are front-loaded followed by the intended effect, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple two-parameter cancel operation, the description covers the action, scope, and outcome. However, given the existence of a sibling tool with an identical action ('cancel_all_orders'), the description lacks routing context to help an agent select correctly between them.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'symbol' and 'exchange' are already well documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, making the baseline score of 3 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel all open orders for a trading pair' and adds the intended outcome of stopping a grid strategy. However, it does not differentiate itself from the closely named sibling 'cancel_all_orders', which appears to describe the same action on the same resource.

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 phrase 'effectively stopping any running grid strategy' implies the intended use case for halting a strategy. But it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as cancel_order or cancel_all_orders.

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