closeFMartBot

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the mutation (cancels orders, closes position), rate limit (10 requests per second), and suggests follow-up action (check getFMartDetail for final PnL). This is strong behavioral disclosure.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, achieving high information density.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, rate limit, parameter sourcing, and a recommended follow-up. This is complete for a stop tool, leaving no critical gaps for the agent.

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 significant value beyond the schema: it explains the source of bot_id (createFMartBot or getFMartDetail) and the purpose of stop_type (indicates reason for closing). With 0% schema coverage, this description compensates well, though enum values remain self-explanatory.

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 closes/stops a futures Martingale trading bot, specifying the actions: cancel pending orders and close the position. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like closeDCABot, closeFGridBot, etc., which target different bot types.

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 explicitly states that only bots in a running state can be closed, providing a key precondition. It also offers an agent hint on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools, though context is clear.

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