binance_us_cust_cancel_orders_symbol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds significant behavioral context: it discloses the requirement for a custodial solution API key, warns to use with caution (implying destructive action), specifies inclusion of OCO orders, and describes the response format. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or permission levels.

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 core purpose, followed by critical warnings and response details in three concise sentences. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second specifies prerequisites and caution, and the third clarifies scope and output. No wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity (destructive operation with API key requirement) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, prerequisites, caution, scope (OCO orders), and response format. However, it misses details like error handling or confirmation prompts, leaving minor gaps for a high-stakes tool.

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 both parameters ('rail' and 'symbol') with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool operates on a 'specific trading pair', which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Cancel') and resource ('all active custodial orders for a specific trading pair'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'binance_us_cancel_order' (single order) and 'binance_us_cancel_all_open_orders' (non-custodial orders) by specifying custodial scope and inclusion of OCO orders.

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 explicit context for when to use this tool: for canceling custodial orders with a specific trading pair, including OCO orders. It warns 'Use with caution' but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., non-custodial cancel tools). The API key requirement is noted, but no comparison to siblings is made.

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