positions.set_exit_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that setting levels triggers automatic closure via check_exits and mentions 'Pro feature'. However, it does not detail auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior when both stop_loss and take_profit are set.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, every sentence adds value. 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?

Given the simple tool (3 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, prerequisite (get_positions), and interaction with check_exits. It could mention that setting new rules overwrites previous ones, but overall it is adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with examples provided in the schema itself. The description mentions 'stop-loss and/or take-profit' indicating optionality but adds no new semantic information beyond what is already in the schema.

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 'Set' and resource 'stop-loss and/or take-profit price levels on an open position', and distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining the automatic closure via check_exits.

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 provides clear context by instructing to use get_positions to find trade IDs, and implies the tool is used before check_exits. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like positions.close.

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