Cancels a resting perpetual order by order ID and market symbol, enabling AI agents to remove open orders on dreamDEX after checking account state.
Cancel a resting perp order by its order id (see get_account for open orders).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Base symbol of the market, e.g. BTC | |
| orderId | Yes | uint128 order id, decimal string |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Resting' usefully implies only open/unfilled orders can be cancelled, which is real behavioral signal, but there is no mention of what happens on an already-filled or nonexistent order, whether cancellation is irreversible, or any permission requirements.
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 sentence with the action and identifier front-loaded and a parenthetical pointer at the end. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the happy path adequately — how to find the id and what gets cancelled — but leaves outcome and failure semantics unspecified.
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% with strong per-property descriptions (base symbol example 'BTC', 'uint128 order id, decimal string'), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that the order is identified by its id, adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema.
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 concrete verb (cancel) plus a precise resource (resting perp order) and identifies the keying parameter (order id). The word 'resting' also implicitly separates it from close_position, though it never names that 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?
Gives an actionable workflow pointer — 'see get_account for open orders' — which tells the agent where the orderId comes from. It stops short of stating exclusions or when to prefer close_position over cancel.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.