getClosePosition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses time range limits but does not mention pagination behavior (cursor parameter not explained), required permissions, or side effects. The returned fields are listed, but overall behavioral details are incomplete.

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 4 sentences and front-loaded with the purpose, but contains redundancy (repeating 'Only applicable to option contracts' and 'Only category=option is supported'). It could be more concise by removing duplication and structuring information more efficiently.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to fully inform. It lists some return fields but omits details on response structure, pagination, and error scenarios. The agent lacks sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly in all situations.

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 must compensate. It explains category and implies meaning for startTime/endTime via time range constraints, but does not describe symbol, limit, or cursor. Important parameters lack any explanation, leaving the agent uncertain about optional vs required usage.

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 it queries closed option position data and lists specific fields (entry/exit prices, fees, delivery details, realized PnL). The agent hint reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it is for closed positions and options only.

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 says 'Use this to retrieve closed option positions' and 'Only category=option is supported.' It also provides time range constraints (default 24h, max 7 days, 6 months history). However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, which would improve clarity.

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