fm_close_positionClose a call when the divergence resolves or goes stale. The position stays on the book as closed rather than being deleted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | Optional closing note, in words. | |
| tenant_slug | Yes | ||
| access_token | Yes | ||
| position_key | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations mark the tool as idempotent and non-destructive, and the description aligns by noting the position stays on the book. The description adds behavioral context about what happens after closing (the position stays, not deleted), which goes beyond annotations. No contradiction is present.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the action and context, and contains no redundant or irrelevant information. Every sentence adds value.
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 low schema coverage and absence of output schema, the description covers the core behavior but leaves gaps: it doesn't explain what the 'note' field is used for, how errors are handled, or what the response contains. It is adequate for a simple mutation tool but not fully comprehensive.
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 low (25%), and the description does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond the schema. The 'note' parameter is mentioned as optional, but no additional semantics are provided for other parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given low 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 clearly states the verb 'Close' and the resource 'a position', and distinguishes the tool from others like 'fm_open_position' or 'fm_reposition' by specifying the reason ('when the divergence resolves or goes stale'). It also clarifies the post-action state ('stays on the book as closed').
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 implies usage for positions that are either resolved or stale, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if the position should be deleted entirely) or mention any prerequisites or alternative tools for other scenarios.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap between `get_my_private_feed`, `subscribe_topic`, and `list_subscriptions`—all return or manage feed URLs, which could confuse an agent. Otherwise, categories like publisher, fund manager, and search tools are clearly separated.
All tools use consistent snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., `get_article`, `search_articles`, `publisher_upload_audio`). Exceptions like `digest` are single-word verbs but still fit the pattern. No mixed conventions are present.
With 37 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold considered 'too many' by the rubric. While the broad scope (news, podcasting, publishing, fund management, embedding) justifies a large surface, the count still adds cognitive load and would benefit from splitting into separate servers.
The tool set covers the major domains: search, retrieval, subscriptions, publishing, fund manager operations, and embedder network. Minor gaps exist, such as the absence of an unsubscribe or delete-episode tool, but the core workflows are well-supported and agents can accomplish most tasks.