platform_close_preview【持仓与执行】一键全平预演（dry-run，不会下单）：列出将被平仓的合约持仓 / 现货余额目标与合计盈亏。可按凭证或交易对过滤。（cost: free）
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "platform_close_preview"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | 交易对（可选，如 BTC/USDT） | |
| credentialId | No | 凭证 ID（可选，来自 platform_credentials） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this non-mutating behavior and adds new context: exactly what is returned (contract positions to be closed, spot balance targets, total PnL) and that the call is free. It stops short of describing output structure or edge cases such as empty positions, but the value beyond annotations is real.
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?
A single dense sentence, front-loaded with a category tag and the dry-run guarantee before the output description and filter options. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.
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 two-optional-parameter read-only preview, the definition covers purpose, safety, output contents, filtering, and cost. With no output schema, the enumeration of returned items is valuable and mostly sufficient, though a bit more detail on the response shape or behavior when nothing is open would make it complete.
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 100%, with both symbol and credentialId already documented in the schema (including the BTC/USDT example). The description only restates that filtering by credential or trading pair is possible, adding no format, default, or combination semantics beyond the schema.
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 verb and resource: it is a dry-run preview of a 'close-all' action, covering both contract positions to be closed and spot balance targets plus total PnL. This distinguishes it from the actual execution sibling (platform_flat_all), but the description never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left implicit.
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 makes clear that the tool is a dry-run and will not place any orders, which implies its use before real execution, and notes that it can be filtered by credential or trading pair. It does not explicitly say 'use platform_flat_all for actual execution' or state any other when/when-not conditions, so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.