getClosePosition

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context: only option category, 24-hour default range, 7-day max range, and 6-month history support. It also lists return fields, which is valuable because there is no output schema.

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 front-loaded with purpose and keeps the agent hint separate. However, the list of returned fields ('entry/exit prices, fees, delivery details, and realized PnL') is repeated almost verbatim in the first and last sentences, adding unnecessary 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?

Core invocation facts are present: option-only category, time defaults, max range, history depth, and return contents. Missing are explicit semantics for limit/cursor/symbol and any pagination behavior, which the agent must infer from parameter names. Given no output schema and 0% schema coverage, this is adequate but has 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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It explains category and implies startTime/endTime behavior through time-range limits, but leaves limit, cursor, and symbol semantics unexplained. This is only partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a clear action and resource: 'Query closed option position data' and lists specific fields returned. The 'Only applicable to option contracts' restriction narrows the scope, but it does not explicitly contrast this with nearby siblings like getClosedPnl.

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 agent hint explicitly directs use to 'retrieve closed option positions' and states that only category=option is supported. It also provides concrete time-range constraints. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the guidance is clear enough for selection.

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