Use this when the user asks to close (fully or partially) an open Hyperliquid position. Risk-reducing: works whenever agent trading is armed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | Partial close size in coins. Omit to close the entire position | |
| symbol | Yes | Coin symbol of the open position, e.g. BTC |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-readonly. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting it is risk-reducing and only available when agent trading is armed, which is not otherwise visible. No contradiction with the annotations found.
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 front-load the use case and then give the key risk/availability context. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.
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 two-parameter close action, the description plus schema covers the core usage, full/partial close, and a key precondition. A return payload is not specified, but no output schema exists and the action's success can likely be inferred; still, a brief note on the response would make it fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both `symbol` and optional `size`. The description's 'fully or partially' wording reinforces the size semantics but does not add much information 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 opens with the specific trigger ('when the user asks to close...') and identifies the exact resource ('an open Hyperliquid position'), including fully or partially. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like place_order or set_position_tp_sl.
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?
It states when to use the tool ('when the user asks to close...') and adds an operational precondition ('works whenever agent trading is armed'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or negative conditions, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to route to it.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action, but get_markets and get_price overlap in the data they return (price, 24h change, volume, funding), differing mainly by all-markets vs single-coin scope. The descriptions are explicit enough that an agent should rarely misselect, though the boundary is slightly blurry.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_ for reads, plus clear action verbs like place_, preview_, cancel_, close_, and set_. There is no mixing of styles or vague generic verbs.
13 tools is well within the ideal range for a trading-focused server. Each tool covers a distinct part of the workflow without feeling bloated or redundant.
The tool surface covers the full trading lifecycle: market data, account/position/order/trade reads, order preview and placement, cancellation, position closing, and TP/SL management. No obvious dead-ends or missing core operations for the stated Hyperliquid perp trading purpose.