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. It discloses the dry-run behavior, which is a notable behavioral trait beyond the schema. However, it omits other potentially relevant behaviors such as error handling, idempotency, or side effects (e.g., what happens if the order is already canceled). The single disclosed trait is valuable but the coverage is thin.

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 a single, short sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key behavioral nuance. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to the tool's understanding.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and dry-run behavior. However, it lacks guidance on when to use the tool relative to alternatives, and does not mention error conditions or the expected outcome for non-existent orders. The dry-run reference is helpful but the description is otherwise minimal.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It says 'by id', which clarifies that order_id is the order identifier, but it does not provide format, example, or any validation hints. For a single-parameter tool, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the field name.

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 states a specific verb and resource: cancel an open order, identified by id. It clearly distinguishes the action from placing or viewing orders, and the 'respects dry-run' note adds a unique behavioral qualifier that helps differentiate it from a hypothetical raw cancel.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (when you want to cancel an open order) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when to use this versus kalshi_cancel_order or other sibling tools. The dry-run mention provides a contextual clue but no direct comparison or condition for choosing this tool.

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