jingswap_cancel_sbtc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful details such as full refund and the deposit-phase restriction, but it omits permission requirements, whether cancellation is final or repeatable, and what the agent should expect if the phase constraint is not met.

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 behavior and phase constraint are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The final tip about earning_opportunities is somewhat tangential to invoking this cancellation tool, so the definition is concise but not maximally disciplined.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key refund and phase behavior but leaves notable gaps around authorization, exact return behavior, and what happens if cancellation is attempted at the wrong time. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, and the market parameter already documents the allowed values and default. The description's phrase 'Works the same for both markets' is consistent but adds little semantic 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: cancel an sBTC deposit from the current Jingswap auction cycle. It clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling jingswap_cancel_stx by naming sBTC, and it clarifies that the behavior is the same across both markets.

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 gives an explicit timing constraint: 'Only works during the deposit phase.' This tells the agent when the tool is valid, though it does not explicitly name jingswap_cancel_stx as the alternative for STX deposits or spell out failure behavior outside the deposit phase.

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