Cancel an active algorithmic trading order and all associated child slices by sending OrderCancelRequest messages through the FIX protocol.
Cancel an active algo and send OrderCancelRequest for all open child slices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| algo_id | Yes | ||
| reason | No | Cancellation reason for audit trail |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that cancelling the algo also sends OrderCancelRequest for all open child slices, which is a key behavioral trait beyond just cancellation.
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?
Single sentence, no filler. Front-loaded with the primary action and immediate consequence. Every word 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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the main action but omits return values, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., algo must be active). Could be more complete for a cancellation tool.
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 50% (only 'reason' has a description). The tool description does not add any extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides. For example, 'algo_id' lacks description in both schema and description.
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?
Description clearly states the verb (cancel), resource (algo), and the specific action of sending OrderCancelRequest for open child slices. It distinguishes from siblings like 'approve_action' or 'modify_algo'.
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 when to use (to cancel an active algo and its child orders) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide comparisons with similar tools like 'cancel_replace' or 'modify_algo'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.