cancel_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly conveys that this is a destructive operation scoped to 'pending limit orders,' which tells an agent that filled or already-canceled orders are not valid targets. It does not discuss permissions, idempotency, or side effects, but the core effect is adequately stated.

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 seven-word sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded and every word adds a meaningful constraint—cancel, pending, limit, by ID. This is appropriately concise for a two-parameter tool.

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 tool is simple, the required order_id is visible in the schema, and the presence of an output schema removes the need for the description to explain return values. The description states the key precondition ('pending') and object type ('limit order'), though the account parameter's role remains implicit.

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 0% and the description only says 'by ID,' which loosely maps to the required order_id parameter. It adds nothing about the account parameter or its default, leaving an agent to guess whether account must be supplied in multi-account contexts.

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 names a concrete action ('Cancel') and a precise object ('a pending limit order by ID'). The 'by ID' qualifier clearly distinguishes this single-order tool from the sibling cancel_all_orders and from list/order-checking tools.

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 implies the intended use—cancel one pending order—and 'pending' hints at a precondition that only open/unfilled orders qualify. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or exclusions, such as using cancel_all_orders for bulk cancellation or noting that non-limit/non-pending orders cannot be canceled.

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