Cancel all open orders for a specific Binance USDⓈ-M Futures symbol to clear pending trades. Use with caution, as it removes every pending order.
Cancel all open orders for a specific symbol on Binance USDⓈ-M Futures. Use with caution as this will cancel all pending orders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Trading pair symbol (e.g., BTCUSDT, ETHUSDT) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose destructive scope ('will cancel all pending orders'), which is genuinely useful. However, it omits permissions/auth requirements, behavior when no open orders exist, and whether results are per-order or a summary.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the operation and its scope stated first and the risk warning second. Nothing is extraneous.
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 mutation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition covers what the tool does and the main risk. Missing only the return shape and empty-state behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.
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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples (BTCUSDT, ETHUSDT). The description adds only the word 'specific symbol', which restates the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (cancel), resource (all open orders), scope qualifier (for a specific symbol), and the venue (Binance USDⓈ-M Futures). The plural 'all orders' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling cancel-order, which handles 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 only guidance is a caution warning, not a when-to-use rule. It never tells the agent to prefer cancel-order for a single order, nor what precondition (existing open orders) makes this call appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.