cap_trade_positions_close

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

With no annotations, the description should carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'SIDE EFFECT' and a requirement, lacking details on irreversibility, return format, or error scenarios. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 with two sentences, but it omits necessary details leading to under-specification. It is front-loaded but lacks completeness.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description fails to cover side effects, error conditions, or parameter details beyond a mention of confirm. It is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description only adds partial meaning to 'confirm' by stating it is required, but leaves deal_id, wait_for_confirm, and timeout_s unexplained.

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 ('open position'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like amend, get, and list. The note 'SIDE EFFECT' further clarifies it is a write operation.

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 prerequisite ('Requires confirm + trading enabled') which guides usage context, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like order cancellation.

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