Cancel pending Binance USDⓈ-M Futures orders by symbol and order ID before they execute. Use it to stop unfilled orders from remaining active.
Cancel an existing order on Binance USDⓈ-M Futures. Use this to cancel pending orders that haven't been executed yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Trading pair symbol (e.g., BTCUSDT, ETHUSDT) | |
| orderId | No | Order ID from Binance | |
| origClientOrderId | No | Original client order ID |
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 usefully discloses the constraint that only unexecuted/pending orders can be cancelled, but says nothing about error behavior (filled/cancelled orders), authorization requirements, or whether cancellation is irreversible.
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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is mildly redundant but adds the pending-order qualifier rather than padding.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what and when but omits error semantics and confirmation of what a successful cancel destroys. Adequate but with clear gaps for a destructive operation.
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 100%, so the schema already documents symbol, orderId, and origClientOrderId. The description adds no information about parameter usage, such as whether orderId and origClientOrderId are alternatives or how they interact.
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) and resource (order) with the venue scoped to Binance USDⓈ-M Futures. It implicitly separates itself from cancel-all-orders by saying 'an existing order', but doesn't name the 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 second sentence gives a clear usage condition: cancel orders that are pending and not yet executed. It does not mention alternatives such as cancel-all-orders or modify-order, so no exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.