cancel_all_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a destructive cancel action but does not state that both buy and sell sides are affected, that the operation is irreversible, or whether partial fills are impacted. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 action sentence followed by an Args list is efficient and front-loaded. No filler words. It could add one behavioral caveat, but as structured it wastes nothing.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the core purpose and parameter are covered. However, given it is a destructive bulk operation with no annotations, it should warn that it cancels all orders (both sides) and is irreversible. The description is adequate but leaves these safety-relevant traits unstated.

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 0% and the schema's symbol field has no description. The description compensates by explaining the parameter with format ('交易对') and a concrete example ('BTCUSDT-PERP.BINANCE'), which is meaningful value beyond the structured schema.

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 a specific action — cancel ALL open orders ('所有挂单') for a specified trading pair — using a clear verb and resource. The word '所有' (all) distinguishes it from the singular sibling cancel_order, though the Chinese text relies on the reader knowing the pair format.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus cancel_order, modify_order, or when to avoid it. It does not state that this is the all-at-once variant, nor warn that it is inappropriate when only a single order needs cancellation. Usage context is entirely implied by the name.

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