cancel_all_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states that the action cancels all open orders and can be filtered, which is the core destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose the result/return value, whether the operation is idempotent, or any partial-failure behavior, which would be useful for a bulk 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 entire description is one tight sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded first, followed by the optional filtering behavior. Every word contributes meaning.

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 two optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the definition is nearly complete. It tells the agent how to invoke the tool broadly and how to narrow scope. The only notable gap is the lack of any statement about the return value, which is more relevant because no output schema exists.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with enums and descriptions, so description-level parameter semantics are not critical. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, just reiterating that filtering is by currency and instrument type. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and a clear resource ('all open orders'), and the optional filters add precision. It naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling tool cancel_order, which handles a single order, and from close_position, which handles positions. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when the goal is to cancel all open orders, optionally narrowed by currency and instrument type. It does not explicitly name alternatives like cancel_order for a single order, but the scope is clear enough to guide selection. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, so it stops short of a 5.

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