cancel_limit_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses that the function does not execute transactions, returns an unsigned transaction, and uses the configured wallet as maker. This goes beyond the name and schema, making the behavior transparent. It could be slightly more detailed about potential error scenarios, but the core traits are covered.

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 structured with a main sentence, an explanation, an Args section, a Returns section, and a Note, followed by a complete example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The example is useful but somewhat lengthy, yet every part adds context. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 description fully explains the return format (success, data with transaction and requestId, error) and the necessary follow-up action (executing the unsigned transaction). It also covers the 'uses configured wallet as maker' aspect. Given the modest complexity and the availability of an output schema (as indicated by context), the description is nearly complete. It might include edge-case handling or alternative tools, but those are not essential.

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 provides no description for the 'order' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does: 'Args: order: Order account address to cancel' clearly explains what the parameter is and what it identifies. The example reinforces this with 'your_order_account_address_here'. This is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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 'Cancel a single active limit order' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling 'cancel_limit_orders' by saying 'single', and from 'execute_limit_order' by noting it only returns an unsigned transaction versus executing it.

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 provides clear context for use: it says the call is free, does not execute transactions, and returns an unsigned transaction that must be signed and executed. It gives an example showing the follow-up use of 'execute_limit_order'. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over 'cancel_limit_orders' or other alternatives, so it misses the explicit exclusion criterion.

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