close_broker_position

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the close executes at market and that it does not close the thesis, adding valuable context about side effects and next steps. It does not mention error cases, but for a simple one-parameter operation this is sufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence and a critical workflow note immediately after. The Args section is simple and redundant with the schema, but does not add unnecessary 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 only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential workflow and key caveat (broker close vs thesis close). It does not describe behavior for invalid symbols or partial closes, but these are not critical for a straightforward market close operation.

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 description adds basic meaning to the `symbol` parameter by calling it a 'Stock symbol of the position to close', which clarifies the role of the parameter beyond the schema title. However, it largely restates the parameter name and does not provide format or validation details, so it only partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states specifically 'Close an open position at market' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool `close_thesis` by explicitly noting that closing at the broker does not close the thesis, making the tool's role 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?

It provides explicit sequential guidance: follow this tool with `close_thesis` and the fill price to record realised R. This clearly indicates when and how to use the tool in context, though it doesn't enumerate exclusions or alternative tools beyond the implied workflow.

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