jingswap_cancel_cycle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the hard timing precondition (BUFFER_BLOCKS 30 + CANCEL_THRESHOLD 500), that deposits are rolled forward rather than refunded, and that this is the last-resort safety valve. It omits who is permitted to call it and what the call returns/broadcasts.

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 core sentences are front-loaded and dense: trigger, timing math, and consequence. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is a promotional line unrelated to invoking this tool and is the one sentence that does not earn its place.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers precondition, effect on deposits, and user recourse. Missing pieces are caller permissions and what the invocation produces (transaction hash vs. state change), which an agent would still want.

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 100% for the single optional 'market' parameter, so the schema already documents the enum values. The description never mentions the market parameter, so it adds nothing beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Cancel the current auction cycle') and pins the trigger condition ('if settlement has failed for too long'), which separates it from sibling cancel tools like jingswap_cancel_stx/jingswap_cancel_sbtc that act on individual deposits.

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?

Clearly states the condition under which it should be called (settlement stalled past the 530-block threshold) and notes the user-facing alternative of withdrawing during the next deposit phase. It does not explicitly contrast with jingswap_settle / jingswap_settle_with_refresh, which is the real routing decision an agent faces.

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