ultrade_market_cancel_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Cancel open order' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., order removal, potential fees), authentication needs (implied by wallet parameters but not stated), or error conditions. The description is too sparse to inform the agent adequately about the tool's behavior.

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 ('Cancel open order'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity (3 required parameters, no annotations). While efficient, it might be too brief to be fully helpful without supporting context.

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 tool's complexity (mutation operation with 3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances. For a cancel operation in a trading context, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively, making this inadequate.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Order ID to cancel'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.

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 'Cancel open order' states the action (cancel) and resource (open order), which is clear but minimal. It doesn't distinguish from sibling 'ultrade_market_cancel_orders' (plural), leaving ambiguity about whether this tool handles single vs. batch operations. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity compared to alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ultrade_market_cancel_orders'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open order), exclusions, or contextual cues. Without annotations or explicit instructions, the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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