positions.close

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

No annotations provided, but description details behavioral differences between live mode (places sell order on Polymarket) and preview mode (marks closed in DB). Discloses core side effects, though could mention error handling or position state checks.

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?

Description is three sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with action, then mode differences, then prerequisite, then access note. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should explain return value. It describes actions but not what the tool returns upon success/failure. Lacks info on preconditions like position must be open. Adequate for a simple close action but missing output behavior.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters. Description reinforces trade_id sourcing from get_positions and mentions default reason. Adds value beyond schema by providing context on how to find trade_id.

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?

Description clearly states the tool closes a copy trading position by trade ID, distinguishes between live and preview modes, and references get_positions for finding trade_id. This provides specific verb+resource differentiation from siblings like positions.list.

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?

Explicitly mentions it's manual closing, references get_positions for prerequisite, and states 'Pro feature' indicating access restrictions. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but context implies it's for manual closure vs automated exit rules.

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