cancel_order

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it refunds USDC/tokens and approximately 0.957 ALGO collateral. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so adequately. It does not, however, detail any potential side effects or irreversibility beyond the refund.

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 two sentences, no filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds essential 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 tool with three parameters, no nested objects, no output schema, and a straightforward action (cancel), the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it does, what parameters are required, and what the result is (refunds). It is complete in context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the source of escrowAppId and clarifying orderOwner as the Algorand address that created the order, going beyond the schema's generic description.

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 'Cancel an open order' with specific verb and resource. It provides necessary details like parameter sources and refund behavior. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools such as 'amend_order' or 'claim', which handle related order actions.

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 gives explicit guidance on required parameters (escrowAppId, orderOwner) and where to obtain them (from create_limit_order or get_open_orders for escrowAppId). It does not mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, which would improve the score.

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