Close futures position

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

With no annotations, the description effectively conveys key behaviors: it requires the trade:futures scope, is idempotency-safe (via idempotencyKey), works on mock/paper trading, and clarifes that it's not financial advice. It could mention that it only closes existing positions, but overall it provides solid transparency.

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 concise, consisting of two to three sentences without redundancy. It front-loads the core action and includes essential details in a logical order.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the key aspects: operation, parameters, required auth, and paper trading context. It could mention that the position must exist, but it's largely complete for a basic close operation.

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 (33%). The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the fraction parameter's behavior and the mandatory nature of idempotencyKey. However, it doesn't elaborate on positionId beyond being required. Thus, while it compensates partially, it doesn't fully cover the undocumented parameters.

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 action: 'Close or partially reduce a mock futures position.' It specifies the resource (futures position) and the operation (close/reduce). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'cancel_spot_order' or 'open_futures_position'.

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 clear context: it is for closing or partially reducing a futures position. It emphasizes that idempotencyKey is REQUIRED, and notes it is paper trading only with virtual funds. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for basic usage.

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