cancel_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Cancel') but does not cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the cancellation is reversible, potential side effects, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a 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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, consisting of two sentences that avoid redundancy. It could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness, but it efficiently conveys the essential information without waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 1 parameter and 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and input/output types but lacks details on usage, behavior, and parameter specifics, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 description mentions 'CancelOrderRequestContainer' as the expected input, which adds some semantic context beyond the schema's 0% coverage. However, it does not explain what this container includes or how to structure it, leaving parameters largely undocumented. The baseline is adjusted due to low schema coverage.

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 verb ('Cancel') and resource ('a limit, take profit or stop loss order'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cancel_dca_order' or 'get_all_orders', which would require more detail to achieve a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'cancel_dca_order' or 'get_all_orders', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks context for selection among similar tools, offering only a basic functional statement.

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