binance_futures_cancel_all_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses that only NEW and PARTIALLY_FILLED orders are canceled, that the operation is irreversible, that it returns per-order results and margin release info, and that failures can occur. The detailed output example further clarifies 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?

The description is front-loaded with a clear one-liner, then organized into sections for function, danger warnings, applicable scenarios, and output examples. It is somewhat long due to the extensive sample output, but the structure and repeated warnings are appropriate for a destructive operation.

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 one-parameter cancel-all operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is fully self-sufficient. It covers what the tool does, which order types are affected, irreversibility, applicable scenarios, and provides a detailed output example that substitutes for a formal output schema.

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 input schema already describes the symbol parameter as required and explains that it specifies the contract whose all orders will be canceled. With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no new parameter-level details beyond restating 'specified contract', hitting the baseline of 3.

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 opens with '一键取消指定合约的所有委托订单' (one-click cancel all orders for a specified contract), which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling binance_futures_cancel_order by targeting all orders for a contract rather than a single order.

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 lists concrete applicable scenarios (rapid market shifts, strategy changes, system maintenance, avoiding risk) and warns that the operation is dangerous. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like binance_futures_cancel_order for canceling a single order, so it stops short of full when-not/alternative guidance.

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