compose_cancel

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

The description adds key behavioral context beyond the annotations by indicating that the tool composes (builds) a transaction rather than directly cancelling the order, and it specifies the 'open' precondition. This is useful information not conveyed by readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, or openWorldHint=true.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the action and target, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 compose tool with four fully-described parameters and no output schema, the description gives the core purpose but omits details about the return value and the need to broadcast the composed transaction via broadcast_transaction. It is functional but leaves gaps for an agent to infer the full workflow.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully explains all four parameters (e.g., 'must be order creator' for address, fee rate guidance for sat_per_vbyte). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'compose' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a transaction to cancel an open DEX order.' This distinctively differentiates it from sibling tools like compose_order (which creates orders) and other compose_* tools, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 description clearly states the context for use: when an open DEX order needs to be cancelled. It provides clear context without the need to infer. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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