nt_close_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'Submits a market order at NT8 side', which is useful, but lacks details on what happens if no position exists, how accountId is handled, or potential risks of a market order. Some behavioral traits are disclosed but not comprehensively.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action ('Flatten (close)') and follows with the mechanism ('market order'), making it easy to scan.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete for a simple close-position tool. It explains the core function and execution method, but misses edge cases like no open position, account selection, and order result return. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 no information about parameters beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 50% with only the 'instrument' parameter described; 'accountId' is undocumented. The description does not compensate for this gap, so parameter semantics are insufficient.

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 verb 'Flatten (close)' and the specific resource 'a specific position by instrument'. This distinguishes it from sibling tool nt_flatten_all, which flattens all positions, making the scope clear.

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 implies usage for closing a single position by instrument but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like nt_flatten_all or nt_place_order. No exclusions are provided, leaving the context somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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