cancel_market_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing effects. It does this well by explaining that sell listings cancel freely, that bounty escrow is refunded, and that an earned bounty cannot be cancelled if a qualifying deed already exists. It does not mention edge cases like order-not-found behavior or whether cancellation is idempotent, but the core side effects and money implications are covered.

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 three sentences and every sentence earns its place: the core verb statement, the simple free-cancel case, and the important escrow exception. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff while still conveying complex cancellation rules.

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 simple two-parameter schema and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It tells the agent what can be cancelled, what happens to money, and the critical case where cancellation is blocked.

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 api_key and order_id. The description adds helpful context about the order types but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema offers. A baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel your own open market order.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like buy_market_order and create_market_order by scoping the action to the caller's own orders. The sell-vs-bounty nuance further clarifies what kind of order is affected.

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 makes the core condition explicit: only your own open market orders can be cancelled. It also gives concrete when-to/cannot-cancel guidance for bounties when a qualifying deed already exists. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the conditions for using this tool are clear enough.

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