jingswap_cancel_stx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose two meaningful traits — the full refund outcome and the deposit-phase-only constraint. It omits the operational profile: this is an on-chain signed transaction, so wallet unlock, fee payment, and failure behavior outside the deposit phase are all left unstated.

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?

Purpose and the phase constraint are front-loaded in two tight sentences with no waste. The trailing tip about earning_opportunities is a cross-sell rather than calling guidance, so it earns its place only marginally.

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-optional-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials (what it does, refund, timing window). It stops short of the prerequisites an agent needs before invoking an on-chain cancellation: signing/wallet state, fees, and what the caller sees on failure.

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% and the single market parameter is already documented with both allowed values. The description adds only a light gloss that market determines whether the cancelled token-B is STX or USDCx, which is the correct baseline for a well-documented 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 specific verb and resource: cancel a token-B deposit (STX or USDCx) from the current Jingswap auction cycle for a full refund. That cleanly frames the scope as token-B, implicitly separating it from jingswap_cancel_sbtc, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so the agent must infer the pairing from the naming convention.

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?

'Only works during the deposit phase' is an explicit when/when-not condition that prevents a failed call. It does not name jingswap_cancel_sbtc as the alternative for cancelling the sBTC-side deposit, which would have completed the routing guidance.

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