cancel_all_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (cancel all orders) and the optional coin filter, but does not disclose potential consequences, irreversibility, permissions required, or behavior on partial failures. For a destructive batch operation, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise: one clear sentence plus an Args block. Every piece of text adds value, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool is simple, has one well-documented parameter, and an output schema exists. However, for a mutating batch operation that can be highly destructive, the description omits important context such as irreversible action, scope limitations (e.g., only open orders), and potential partial-failure semantics. It is minimally complete but lacks safety-critical detail.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well by explaining the single parameter 'coin' as an optional trading pair and clarifying that None means cancel all orders. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema definition.

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+resource ('Cancel all orders') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cancel_order and cancel_order_by_client_id by indicating the bulk-cancel scope. The optional coin filter adds further precision.

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 this tool: when canceling all orders or all orders for a specific coin. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., cancel_order for individual orders), but the 'all' scope provides sufficient contextual guidance for selection.

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