cancel_all_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose safety-relevant behavior. It states the action but does not mention irreversibility, the full scope of orders affected (stocks, crypto, options), or potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive mutation tool.

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, direct sentence with zero unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description adequately states the operation's purpose and scope. However, it omits any caution or confirmation details that could be expected for a cancel-all operation, though these are more behavioral than contextual.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, the description does not need to add parameter information. No additional semantics are required.

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 'Cancel all open orders' uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('all open orders'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel_order_by_id and replace_order_by_id. The scope is unambiguous and operational.

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: when the goal is to cancel every open order at once. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., cancel_order_by_id) or exclusion conditions, so the usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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