Sell a position to ICARE liquidity

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that execution is against the liquidity buyback price and typically fills within seconds, but omits what happens when no price is offered (does the order rest?), whether fills can be partial, reversibility, and any auth/balance requirement for a mutation-style trade.

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 front-loaded sentence with a tight parenthetical; every clause carries information (action, object, price basis, fill speed). No filler or restated title.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only guidance available. It adequately conveys the trade's core semantics but leaves the matchId parameter's meaning, the sell outcome (fill, partial fill, or resting order), and error conditions unaddressed for a tool that moves money.

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 coverage is only 33% – only 'units' is documented in the schema – so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'Win or Lose units' links to the side enum and 'on an open match' implies matchId must reference a live match, but it adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond that.

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 names a specific verb (Sell), the resource (Win or Lose units on an open match), and the counterparty/mechanism (ICARE liquidity buyback price), which cleanly separates it from the buy-side siblings like icare_bet. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool to disambiguate against, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer you sell units you already hold on an open match, and the parenthetical gives a condition (filled when the price is offered). There is no explicit when-to-use versus icare_bet or icare_activate, and no statement of prerequisites such as holding a position first.

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