pro_cancel_all_orders

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the two-step preview/confirm flow, the count return value, and the warning that all pending orders are affected. No contradiction with the annotations was found.

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 main action is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes a distinct piece of information: scope, filtering, return value, caution, and the confirmation flow. Minor redundancy between 'open orders' and 'all pending orders' keeps it from being perfectly concise.

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 destructive bulk operation with no output schema, the description covers the most critical operational details: preview-first confirmation, required user agreement, optional pair filtering, return count, and caution. It does not specify the exact contents of the preview response or explicitly route to pro_cancel_order for single-order cancellation, but the annotations and schema fill most remaining gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the preview behavior of confirm=true, which is not fully captured in the schema, and by reinforcing that the pair filter narrows cancellation to a specific market. It adds little beyond the schema for jwt and idempotency_key, but those were already well documented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel all open orders in Pro Trading.' It further clarifies the optional pair filter and states the return value (count of cancelled orders), making it clearly distinguishable from the singular pro_cancel_order sibling.

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 clearly implies the usage context: bulk cancellation of open orders, optionally filtered by pair, with a strong caution warning. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name the alternative for cancelling a single order (pro_cancel_order), so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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