Cancels an existing hashrate resale configuration using the mining ID and mining account name. Use it to stop a resale setup tied to specific account details.
Cancel an existing hashrate resale configuration using the mining ID and account details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| configId | Yes | Mining ID | |
| userName | Yes | Mining Account | |
| recvWindow | No | Optional: cannot be greater than 60000 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the operation as a cancellation (implying a state change) but does not disclose whether the action is reversible, if confirmation is required, what happens on success/failure, or any permissions/rate limit considerations. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.
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 3-parameter tool with complete schema documentation, the description is minimally adequate. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should have provided more context about the cancellation's effects (e.g., permanence, idempotency). It conveys the core action but lacks depth expected for a destructive operation.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (configId as 'Mining ID', userName as 'Mining Account', recvWindow with constraints). The description adds no additional meaning beyond repeating 'mining ID and account details', which overlaps with the schema. 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('existing hashrate resale configuration'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It also mentions the key inputs (mining ID and account details), distinguishing it from sibling tools like BinanceHashRateResaleList or BinanceHashRateResaleRequest.
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 implies the usage context (cancelling an existing resale configuration) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternative tools. For example, it does not mention that this should only be used for configurations created via BinanceHashRateResaleRequest or that the configuration must exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.