cancel_orderCancel a resting order by exchange order ID and symbol to prevent unwanted fills or free margin.
Cancel a resting order by its exchange order id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Why you are cancelling, if not obvious. | |
| symbol | Yes | ||
| orderId | Yes | The oid returned when the order was placed. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the verb. It does not say whether cancellation is irreversible, what happens if the order is already filled or partially filled, whether auth/permissions are required, or what the call returns.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the identifying information comes first. It is perhaps too terse for a mutation tool, but there is no wasted text.
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?
This is a state-changing operation with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter. The description omits failure modes, irreversibility, and required permissions, so an agent lacks enough context to call it confidently in edge cases.
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 67% (orderId and reason are documented inline), and the description only re-frames the orderId concept already covered by the schema. The required 'symbol' parameter has no description in either the schema or the description, leaving a real gap.
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?
Specific verb (cancel) plus resource (resting order) and the keying mechanism (exchange order id). It distinguishes itself from close_position and set_stop_loss by operating on orders rather than positions, but never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.
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 qualifier 'resting' implies the tool applies only to live/unfilled orders, which is a mild scoping constraint, but there is no stated when-to-use, no alternative (e.g., close_position for filled exposure), and no guidance on what to do if the order is already gone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.