Prepare Strata TWAP cancellation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that the tool requests external-signing bytes, indicating this is a preparation step rather than the actual cancellation, and specifies the TWAP must be 'active owned'. This provides useful context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the core action. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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?

With no output schema and four required parameters, the description should explain the expected return (the signing bytes), the complete flow (prepare → sign → submit), and any prerequisites. It only mentions 'active owned TWAP' and the request for bytes, leaving significant gaps about how to use the tool and what happens next.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, and the description only hints at the parameters ('active owned TWAP') without explaining each required field (marketId, ownerWallet, sessionPublicKey, twapId). It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions by clarifying parameter purposes or relationships.

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 clearly states the action (request external-signing bytes), the resource (TWAP), and the scope (cancel one active owned TWAP). It distinguishes from sibling tools like strata_twap_prepare (creation) and strata_twap_submit (submission) by explicitly focusing on cancellation.

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 usage for cancellation and mentions 'active owned TWAP', but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like strata_twap_prepare or strata_twap_submit, nor does it explain the multi-step flow or when to invoke this tool versus the others. It provides some context but lacks clear exclusions or prerequisites.

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