paper_trade_close

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

With no annotations provided, the description properly discloses critical behavioral traits: it is simulation-only, never sends real orders, and does not close immediately. It also mentions the 16-minute SIP safety window, adding context beyond the schema. However, it does not detail behaviors for invalid parameters or duplicate requests, which are somewhat covered by schema descriptions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and key caveats. Every sentence adds essential information without waste, maintaining high readability and brevity.

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 existence of an output schema and sibling tools, the description covers the essential behavior and workflow. It explains the delay and estimation step but could be more explicit about how to use it in conjunction with other tools. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's role, though not exhaustive.

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 schema already provides descriptions for 4 out of 5 parameters, and the tool description does not add parameter-level details. The backtest parameter lacks a schema description and is also not explained in the tool description, leaving a gap. While the description's 'simulation-only' hints at backtest usage, it does not fully compensate for the missing parameter context.

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 specific verb 'record' and resource 'simulation-only market DAY exit intent', distinguishing it from opening trades (paper_trade_record) and evaluation (paper_trade_evaluate). It also clarifies it does not send live orders or close immediately, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implies a clear workflow: use this to record an exit intent, then evaluate later after a 16-minute safety window. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context and sibling listings make the intended usage evident.

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