Cancel an order with a single confirmed request; reconcile the account first if the outcome is unknown before any retry.
Cancel an order with a financial side effect. This mutation is sent once; an unknown outcome requires account reconciliation before any retry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| orderId | Yes | ||
| clientRequestId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No contradiction with annotations: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true are all consistent with a cancel operation. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations by calling out the financial side effect and the requirement to reconcile the account before retrying after an unknown outcome.
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 tightly written sentences with the main action front-loaded and the critical risk/reconciliation warning immediately after. Every word adds value.
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 operational warning is strong, but a tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation needs more to be complete: the meaning of confirm, the format/use of clientRequestId, and what a successful cancellation returns are all missing.
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 0% schema description coverage and four required parameters, the burden was on the description to explain confirm, clientRequestId, symbol, and orderId. It only provides a financial context that hints at why confirm exists; clientRequestId's role as an idempotency key and the need for confirm=true are left implicit.
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 immediately states a specific action ('Cancel an order') on a specific resource, with a consequence ('financial side effect'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dzengi_place_order, dzengi_edit_order, and dzengi_close_position.
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 intended use is implied by 'Cancel an order', and the description adds operational guidance about sending the mutation once and reconciling before a retry. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.