ig_close_position

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that closing may realize profit or loss, but omits critical details such as the need for confirmation, irreversibility, partial-close mechanics, or preconditions. This leaves significant gaps for a financial 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?

The description is very concise and front-loaded, with two short sentences. It contains no redundant information and the profit/loss note adds value. However, the extreme terseness sacrifices informative content, though that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness flaw.

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?

This is a complex, high-stakes trading tool with five parameters, a nested request object, and an output schema. The description is far too sparse, lacking usage context, parameter guidance, confirmation requirements, and operational flow. It is wholly inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0% and the description mentions no parameter names or formats. The phrase 'all or part' hints at the request object but does not explain deal_id, timezone, confirm, or live_confirmation. An agent cannot construct a valid request from this information alone.

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') and the resource ('OTC position'), including the scope ('all or part'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create/update position, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage for closing positions but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. An agent can infer the use case but gets no direct guidance on context or when not to use it.

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