Close or reduce a leveraged sBTC position by repaying borrowed sBTC and withdrawing collateral back to your wallet.
Close or reduce your leveraged sBTC position. Opens a modal to repay borrowed sBTC and withdraw collateral back to your wallet.
Tip: call earning_opportunities to see how to put your assets to work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| percentage | No | Percentage of position to unwind (1-100, optional, can be set in UI) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.77.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose genuinely useful behavior — that a modal opens and that borrowed sBTC is repaid while collateral returns to the wallet. It omits prerequisites (must a position exist? must the wallet be unlocked?), what happens at 100% versus partial unwind, and whether the action is confirmable/cancellable.
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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the mechanism. The trailing promotional tip is short but is the least essential sentence in the block.
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?
For a position-closing operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what happens but not the operational context an agent needs: prerequisites, risk of an unrecoverable state, or expected result. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 100% for the single optional `percentage` param, so the schema already defines the 1-100 range. The description only hints at the parameter via 'reduce' and adds no semantics about defaults or how a partial unwind behaves. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource: 'Close or reduce your leveraged sBTC position,' and adds the mechanism (repay borrowed sBTC, withdraw collateral). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely-named sibling `pillar_direct_unwind`, so an agent has no textual basis for choosing between the two.
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?
Usage is implied by the resource itself — you call it to exit a leveraged sBTC position. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the near-duplicate `pillar_direct_unwind` alternative. The `earning_opportunities` tip is a follow-on suggestion, not a usage-selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.