okx_close_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the order type (reduce-only market) and direction (opposite), which is helpful. However, it does not mention the confirm parameter's preview/execute behavior (though the schema covers it), nor does it state whether the entire position is closed or what happens if no open position exists. These gaps make it moderately transparent but not fully.

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 sentence that is direct and information-dense. It states the action, the resource, and the mechanism without any unnecessary words. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the core action and mechanism. It doesn't cover edge cases like missing positions or the preview/execute flow, but those are partially covered by the schema's confirm parameter description. Overall, it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (instrument and confirm) with descriptions. The tool description does not add any further meaning to the parameters; it only repeats the overall purpose. Thus the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Close') and resource ('an open position') and explains the mechanism ('placing a reduce-only market order in the opposite direction'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like okx_get_positions (view) and okx_place_order (general order placement).

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 use when there is an open position to close, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over okx_place_order or other alternatives. No exclusions or comparative guidance is provided, so usage is inferred rather than explicitly clarified.

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