cancel_order

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior Anastasia, but the description adds meaningful context: the cancellation is only an attempt ('Intenta') and it does not reverse shares already bought or sold. This helps the agent set correct expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a key limitation. Every part contributes useful information.

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 simple one-parameter cancellation tool with annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the description is mostly complete. It states the scope (live order), the tentative nature of the action, and a major limitation (no reversal of filled shares). It does not describe return values, but there is no output schema and the tool is straightforward.

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, and the description does not mention local_order_id at all. The parameter name and title are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema and fails to compensate for the low 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 ('cancelar') and a clear resource ('una orden live de este MCP'), and it adds the important limitation that it does not revert shares. This distinguishes it from the sibling cancel_stop_loss, which targets stop-loss orders rather than live 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 gives clear context: this tool is for canceling live orders, which implies it is not for stop-loss orders or other order types. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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