close_all_positions

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

The description discloses that this is a write operation that executes real trades and requires a specific environment variable. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it adequately communicates the mutation and necessary configuration. It also mentions the return is a per-position result array with success/error, which is useful behavioral context.

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 at two sentences, front-loading the core action and then adding the return type and warning. It avoids unnecessary detail. However, it could benefit from slight structuring (e.g., listing parameters or conditions) without significantly increasing length.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the TWAP-related parameters (duration, interval, randomization) and the referral code. The return structure is vaguely described but not detailed enough for an agent to confidently parse the result array.

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 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only addresses the executionType parameter by naming its enum values. The other parameters (twapDuration, twapIntervalSeconds, randomizeExecution, referralCode) are not explained, leaving their semantics unclear. This is a significant gap since the schema does not provide any descriptions.

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 purpose: closing every open Pear Protocol position. It specifies the required executionType parameter (MARKET or TWAP), which distinguishes it from sibling 'close_position' that closes a single position. The verb+resource combination is specific and 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?

The description indicates it closes all positions, implying it should be used when batch closing is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the alternative of using 'close_position' repeatedly or provide conditions for when not to use it. The prerequisite 'PEAR_TRADE_ENABLED=true' is noted, but no exclusion criteria are given.

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