hl_close_outcome_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'close' but does not disclose whether this requires prior auth/session keys, whether a partial close is supported, how isMarket vs limit behaves, or what happens on failure — significant gaps for a state-changing trading operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the input-mode contract. No filler; it could be slightly tighter but nothing is wasted.

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 10-parameter, unannotated, mutation-only tool with no output schema, the description leaves too much unsaid: the dex parameter is undocumented, auth requirements are unstated, and the structured-vs-computedData relationship is undefined.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: it names 8 of the 10 params and discloses the two input modes (structured params vs a pre-built computedData). However it omits 'dex', gives no format/semantics for price, size, or isMarket, and does not explain how the two modes relate.

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?

States a specific verb (close) and resource (HyperLiquid outcome-market position), which clearly distinguishes it from hl_create_outcome_order and hl_cancel_outcome_order by name convention. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling or scope it against close_perp_position, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent can infer it is the counterpart to create/cancel, but nothing tells it when closing is appropriate versus cancelling an open order.

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