binance_cancel_convert_limit_order

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the kill-switch behavior tied to BINANCE_ALLOW_TRADING=1, the UNKNOWN cancellation status on 5xx/timeout, and the need to verify resting orders before retrying. This is valuable operational context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 long but every section earns its place: use criteria, exclusions, return behavior, example, and error handling. It is front-loaded with the primary action and endpoint, then organized into scannable sections without repetition.

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 destructive and signed nature of the operation, the description covers endpoint, authentication implication, use cases, exclusions, return payload, example, and error recovery. No information an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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?

Although the schema itself documents order_id, the tool description reinforces it with a concrete example and explains where the ID comes from indirectly through sibling tool references. For a single required parameter, this is sufficient, though the description could have explicitly restated the parameter's source.

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 action ('Cancel a resting convert limit order') and names the exact endpoint, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also implicitly distinguishes this convert-order cancellation from spot-order cancellation, which is reinforced in the When NOT to Use section.

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 has explicit 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections. It names binance_cancel_order as the alternative for spot orders and clarifies that completed conversions cannot be undone, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool should be selected.

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