ig_close_position

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does mention 'may realize profit or loss', which is useful, but it omits key operational details like confirmation behavior, irreversibility, or the meaning of partial closure. For a mutation tool, more transparency is needed.

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, with two short sentences that both add value: one states the action, the other notes a potential financial consequence. No redundant information is present, though the brevity leaves some gaps.

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 complexity (4 params, nested `request` object, `confirm` flow) and the absence of annotations, the description is too sparse. The output schema may cover return values, but the description fails to explain how to construct a valid request, how confirmation works, or how partial close is specified.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention `deal_id`, `request`, `confirm`, or `live_confirmation` at all. The `request` object is opaque with `additionalProperties: true`, and the description gives no clue what fields it expects, making this a serious gap.

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's function: 'Close all or part of an OTC position.' The verb 'close' is specific, and the resource 'OTC position' is clearly identified. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `ig_update_position` and `ig_create_position` by the action of closing.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `ig_update_position` or `ig_create_position`. The description implies use for closing positions but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with other position-adjustment tools.

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