bitpin_cancel_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers two non-schema behavioral facts: a 5400/hour rate limit and an authentication requirement. It still omits mutation consequences such as irreversibility or behavior for partially filled orders, which matters for a destructive operation.

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, front-loaded sentences — action, rate limit, auth — with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 cancellation tool with full schema documentation, the description covers action, constraint, and auth. The remaining gap is outcome semantics (what happens on success/failure, partial fills), which is notable since no output schema exists.

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% and the order_id field already documents accepted formats including Persian digits. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond 'by its order ID', so baseline 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 and resource ('Cancel an active open order on BitPin') qualified by order ID, which is materially clearer than the bare name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling bitpin_cancel_bulk_orders, leaving singular-vs-bulk differentiation to inference.

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 phrase 'active open order' implies it only applies to orders that are still open, which is useful selection guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it or a pointer to bitpin_cancel_bulk_orders / bitpin_get_order_by_id for lookup before cancelling.

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