pro_cancel_all_orders

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

With no annotations, the description mentions that it returns a count and advises caution, implying destructiveness. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, irreversibility, or potential rate limits. Adequate but not richly transparent.

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 two sentences plus a warning tag, no wasted words, front-loaded with the main action. Every part earns its place.

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 simple bulk cancellation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filter, return, and caution. It is nearly complete, though could explicitly mention that omitting the pair cancels all markets.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds only 'Optional pair filter' which is redundant. Baseline 3 applies as the schema already documents semantics adequately.

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 tool cancels all open orders in Pro Trading, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling pro_cancel_order by emphasizing 'all open orders', but does not explicitly compare the two.

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 includes a caution about affecting all pending orders, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative pro_cancel_order for single orders. Missing explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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