cancel_order_by_client_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects like irreversibility, that the order must be open, or error behavior if the order is already filled. The description merely restates the action without adding behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact parameter breakdown. No unnecessary words, and the structure is highly scannable.

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 description covers the essential purpose and parameters, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, it lacks behavioral context such as cancellation semantics, and does not clarify the distinction from 'cancel_order', leaving the overall context somewhat incomplete.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining 'coin' as a trading pair and detailing 'client_order_id' as a 128-bit hex string with an example. This adds meaningful semantic value for both parameters.

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' with a resource 'specific order' and a distinguishing qualifier 'by client order ID'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'cancel_order' and 'cancel_all_orders'.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'cancel_order'. It only states the mechanics of cancellation without specifying context or exclusions.

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