Cancel Order

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description's 'may affect real funds' warning largely restates the safety profile. It does add the useful LIVE ACCOUNT framing, but leaves the non-idempotent behavior unexplained (e.g. what an error or no-op looks like when re-canceling) and says nothing about the response.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with the risk warning first. The only friction is the missing sentence break between 'ID' and 'This', which makes it read as one run-on.

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 mutation with a nested body and no output schema, the description covers the safety headline but leaves out return values, error conditions for already-terminal orders, and the optionality of marketSlug. Adequate given the rich annotations, but not complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents orderId as the 'Exchange-assigned Order ID to cancel' and marketSlug, so the description adds essentially no meaning beyond it. Notably it does not mention that marketSlug inside the required body is optional, which is the one non-obvious parameter nuance.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Cancel a specific order') and identifies the key ('exchange-assigned ID'), which lets an agent distinguish this from cancel_all_open_orders and cancel_multiple_orders by the singular scope. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the singular/plural distinction is reasonably inferable.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: cancel one known order when you have its exchange ID. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer cancel_multiple_orders or modify_order, no prerequisites (e.g. order must be open), and no note about what happens if the order already filled or was already canceled.

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