cancel_otc_offer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result is an unsigned transaction CBOR requiring the seller's wallet signature, which reveals a two-step flow rather than a completed cancellation. It still omits auth/permission requirements, whether the cancellation is reversible, and any timing or fee behavior.

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 tight sentences with no waste; the action is front-loaded and the return-value note follows naturally. 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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the return artifact (unsigned CBOR), which is what an agent needs to chain a signing step. It lacks prerequisites and failure/edge behavior, but is nearly complete given the schema richness.

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%: both offerId and walletAddress are documented with format and role in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning 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 (OTC offer), which distinguishes it cleanly from the create/fill/query OTC siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope conditions, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 says what the tool does but never states when to use it, when not to, or which sibling to prefer (e.g., vs. get_otc_offer_by_id to verify an offer exists first). No prerequisites or contextual routing is provided.

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