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 already indicate idempotentHint=true (closing is safe to repeat) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the position stays on the book as closed rather than deleted, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose any authentication requirements or side effects beyond the annotation's scope.
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 a single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose.
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?
With 4 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to identify the correct position_key, what format the note should take, or what the tool returns. The behavioral note about staying 'on the book' is valuable but insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.
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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'position' contextually but does not explain any parameter beyond implying position_key is the identifier. The note parameter is described in schema as 'Optional closing note, in words,' but the description adds no meaning. The tenant_slug and access_token are left entirely undocumented.
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 tool closes a call position when divergence resolves or goes stale. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fm_open_position by focusing on closing rather than opening, though it does not explicitly differentiate from fm_reposition.
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 provides a specific trigger for use ('when divergence resolves or goes stale') which gives implicit usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like fm_reposition or simply leaving the position open.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that prevent ambiguity. Even similar tools like search_articles, search_declassified, and search_unified target different corpora, and the publisher tools are well-separated. No overlap that would confuse an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, using clear prefixes like get_, search_, subscribe_, publisher_, fm_, digest_, etc. The naming is predictable and systematic, making it easy for an agent to infer functionality.
At 37 tools, the count is higher than the typical 3-15 range for a coherent set, but the server covers a wide domain (content retrieval, podcast management, fund manager book, embedder network, etc.). Each tool earns its place, though the set could be slightly reduced by merging some rare-use tools.
The tool surface is comprehensive for the server's purpose—search, audio, subscriptions, publisher workflows, and special features like the Divergence Index. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit unsubscribe tool, no article update/delete), but they are not critical for core workflows.