Cancel an active order in Sberbank webQUIK using its order number and class code to stop it from executing further.
Cancel an active order by order number and class code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| class_code | Yes | ||
| order_number | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions 'active order', implying only active orders can be cancelled, but it omits critical traits for a destructive mutation: authentication requirements, irreversibility, failure behavior, and confirmation needs.
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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundant words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, given the mutation nature and lack of annotations, the description is too sparse: it does not cover prerequisites, safety, or how 'active' is determined, leaving significant operational gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names both required parameters ('order number' and 'class code') but provides no format, validation, or meaning beyond the parameter names already in the schema.
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 and resource: cancel an active order. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like send_order and get_orders, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate siblings in the text.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose: call this tool when you need to cancel an active order. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.