cancel_all_orders

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly does: it flags the operation as destructive, explains the confirm guard's purpose, and states the API-credential requirement. It stops short of saying whether the cancel is irreversible or what happens when there are zero open orders, but the safety profile is well disclosed.

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 tight sentences with the destructive scope front-loaded, then the safety guard, then the sibling alternative. Nothing is padding and the order matches how an agent needs the 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?

No output schema exists, so the description would need to cover behavior, and it does for the safety-critical parts. The only unwritten item is the result shape (e.g., count of cancelled orders) and empty-state behavior, which is minor for a bulk-cancel tool with a hard confirm gate.

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 both properties are already documented in the schema ('Must be true to actually cancel', 'Scope the cancel to one market'). The description restates that semantics inline rather than adding format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Cancel ALL of the authenticated account's open orders') plus the optional scoping dimension via market_id. It also explicitly negates the nearest sibling, cancel_order, so the agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('all open orders, optionally scoped to one market') and the alternative for the single-order case ('To cancel a single order use cancel_order'). The requirement to pass confirm:true is stated as a precondition rather than left to inference.

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