cancel_dca_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the side effect (remaining assets returned to the owner) and the return contract (unsigned transaction CBOR to be signed by the wallet), which tells the agent a follow-up signing step is required. It stops short of stating authorization requirements or whether cancellation is reversible.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the action, its effect, and its return value are front-loaded in that order. Every sentence 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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: what it does, the asset-return side effect, and the CBOR return value. Only auth/permission context and error behavior are missing, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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%, so both parameters (orderId format '{txHash}#{outputIndex}' and bech32 walletAddress) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Cancel) and resource (an active DCA order), and the resource noun cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like cancel_otc_offer or create_dca_order. An agent can route to it without opening any schema.

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 qualifier 'active' implies the order must be live, which is useful implied context. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of how to obtain a valid orderId (e.g., get_dca_orders), and no statement of preconditions or alternatives.

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