Cancel an open order by providing its order ID, receiving confirmation that the cancellation was successful.
Cancel an open order.
Args: order_id: The order ID to cancel
Returns confirmation of cancellation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the cancellation and confirmation, but omits side effects, failure conditions, irreversibility, or what happens if the order is no longer open.
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 short, front-loaded, and free of filler. The Args and Returns lines are helpful, though they partially duplicate structured schema and output-schema information.
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 simple one-parameter cancellation tool, the description covers the basic operation, argument, and confirmation. It lacks edge-case behavior and alternative routing, but the low complexity keeps the gaps modest.
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 description adds a small amount of meaning beyond the schema by saying order_id is 'the order ID to cancel'. However, schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain how to obtain the ID or any format/validity requirements, so compensation is only marginal.
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 states a specific action, 'Cancel an open order', clearly identifying the resource and operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like cancel_all_orders or close_position, so it stops short of a perfect score.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cancel_all_orders or close_position. The description only states the action without providing selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.