nt_flatten_all

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It clearly states the sweeping action (flatten all positions, cancel all orders across all accounts), which implies destructive and far-reaching effects. However, it doesn't mention irreversibility, execution method (e.g., market liquidation), or any safety caveats—leaving room for more transparency.

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 a single, impactful sentence that front-loads the emergency warning and immediately states the action. Every word contributes to clarity, with no redundancy.

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 zero-input tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential action and scope. The emergency-stop framing contextualizes the tool's severity, though a brief note on confirmation or irreversible consequences would enhance completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema already provides complete coverage. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description need not add parameter details, and the score reflects that.

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 with a specific verb ('flatten') and explicit scope ('all open positions and cancel all working orders across all accounts'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nt_cancel_all_orders (which only cancels orders) and nt_close_position (which closes a single position).

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 'EMERGENCY STOP' prefix conveys a strong situational context for urgent use. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or conditions when not to use, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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