close_leverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions closing a position but does not describe side effects (e.g., position deletion, collateral impact, fees). Minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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 a single sentence that includes the essential action and the increment constraint. It is concise, but could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain return values. The tool modifies state, but the description omits details about what happens after closing (e.g., confirmation, remaining position). Context is minimal.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (position_id and percentage). The description adds '10% increments' which is already present in the percentage parameter description. No new semantic value 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 clearly states the tool closes or partially closes a leverage position, specifying the operation (close) and the resource (leverage position). It also mentions 10% increments, which distinguishes it from related tools like leverage_buy or get_leverage_positions.

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 a usage constraint (10% increments) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like leverage_buy or adjust leverage. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., having an open position) is given.

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