binance_spot_cancel_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only NEW/PARTIALLY_FILLED orders can be canceled, cancellation is immediate and irreversible, frozen balance is released, and the response includes order details and execution status. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent a thorough understanding of side effects.

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 the purpose and uses clear sections with emojis, making it scannable. However, it is verbose, with some redundant statements (e.g., '只能撤销未完全成交的订单' and '已成交或已撤销的订单无法再次撤销') and a lengthy output example that repeats details. Despite this, the structure aids comprehension and the output example is valuable given no output schema.

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 only two parameters, full schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining the order states that are cancelable, the side effects, applicable scenarios, and a detailed output example. There are no significant gaps in understanding what the tool does, when to use it, or what to expect.

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 covers 100% of the parameters (symbol and orderId) with detailed explanations, examples, and notes. The description itself does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool cancels a specified order in the spot market using the verb '取消' (cancel) and identifies the resource as '现货市场的指定委托订单' (a specified order in the spot market). It distinguishes from siblings like 'binance_spot_cancel_all_orders' by specifying a single order, and from futures tools via the '现货' (spot) qualifier.

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 provides clear applicable scenarios (price changes, strategy adjustment, risk management) and explicitly excludes orders that are fully filled or already canceled, noting only NEW and PARTIALLY_FILLED orders can be canceled. However, it does not mention when to use the alternative 'binance_spot_cancel_all_orders' or the futures counterpart, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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