cancel_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the action itself and doesn't disclose whether cancellation is irreversible, whether filled orders are rejected, or any permission/state prerequisites. The behavior is basic and obvious, but genuinely valuable context is missing.

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?

Extremely concise with zero wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and the Args block clearly maps parameters to their meanings. Every element earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, both required parameters are explained, and an output schema exists. However, without annotations and with no mention of edge cases (e.g., attempting to cancel an already-filled order), the definition is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: symbol includes a concrete example (BTCUSDT-PERP.BINANCE) and oid is identified as the order ID. This adds meaning beyond the bare string types in the 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 clearly states a specific action ('撤销一个挂单' = cancel one pending order) with a verb and resource. It differentiates from the sibling cancel_all_orders by specifying a single order, though it doesn't explicitly name that alternative.

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 alternatives like cancel_all_orders or modify_order. The intended use case (cancel one specific open order) is implied by the name and arguments, but not stated explicitly.

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