close_position

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'close a position' without explaining whether it triggers a market order, how position identification works (position_id vs symbol), or what the response indicates. It also does not state any side effects or restrictions, making it insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and to the point, though it sacrifices depth for brevity. It earns its place by being clear and direct.

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 complexity of a trading action with no output schema and no annotations, the description is significantly incomplete. It does not explain how to specify a partial close (qty), how to choose between position_id and symbol, what the return value indicates, or any prerequisites. An agent would need to rely entirely on the schema and guesswork to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a descriptive comment (e.g., qty for partial close, symbol if position_id omitted). The description adds little beyond repeating the full/partial concept, which is already in the schema. It does not clarify relationships between parameters or provide extra context for 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 the action (close) and the resource (a trading position), and notes the 'full or partial' scope. It is specific enough to distinguish from related tools like place_order or cancel_order, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. It is not a tautology and conveys the core purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cancel_order or modify_order. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or differences from sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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