binance_futures_cancel_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It clearly states that only NEW or PARTIALLY_FILLED orders are cancellable, that margin is released immediately, and that filled or already-cancelled orders cannot be cancelled. It also provides a detailed output example showing the response structure. It could mention error cases or rate limits, but overall it is transparent.

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 well-structured with clear sections for features, warnings, scenarios, and a sample response. It is somewhat long, but each section contributes valuable information without redundancy. The emoji and headers improve readability.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description compensates with a detailed success example. It explains cancellation conditions and margin release, and includes usage scenarios. It lacks explicit error handling or rate-limit information, but for a 2-parameter mutation tool, the description is largely complete.

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 100% for both parameters, with schema descriptions already explaining the need for exact symbol matching and how to obtain orderId. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it cancels a specified contract (futures) order: '取消合约市场的指定委托订单'. It uses a specific verb (取消) and resource (合约订单), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like cancel_all_orders by emphasizing '指定' (specified).

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 includes an '适用场景' (applicable scenarios) section listing concrete use cases such as market shifts, strategy adjustments, and risk control. It also references an alternative for viewing orders (binance_futures_open_orders) in the schema. However, it does not explicitly compare with cancel_all_orders or spot cancel, leaving some room for improvement.

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