atas_close_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that execution uses a market order and that omitting both parameters triggers automatic calculation of opposite direction and full volume. This is meaningful behavior beyond the tool name, though it stops short of describing edge cases or failure conditions.

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, well-structured sentence delivers the core purpose and the key default behavior with no filler. Important information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and has an output schema, so return-value documentation is not required. The description covers the normal close-position flow, but it omits exact direction value syntax and the behavior for partial omission, which an agent may need to call the tool correctly in edge cases.

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 provides no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that volume and direction are optional and that omitting both closes the entire position automatically. However, it does not specify valid values for direction or what happens when only one parameter is omitted, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 action ('flatten the current position') using a specific method ('market order'). It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like place_order and cancel_order, so an agent can understand its purpose immediately.

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: use this to close the current position, and when volume and direction are omitted, the strategy auto-calculates the full opposite close. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the purpose is specific enough that the usage context is clear.

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