force_exit_trade

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool bypasses strategy signals, performs a sell, and supports partial exits. It does not detail side effects like order execution details, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise: two sentences of core information plus bulleted examples. No wasted words; front-loaded with the key 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?

For a tool with 3 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and partial exit capability. It could mention what happens after exit (e.g., trade closed, funds returned), but the examples provide enough guidance.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value through examples showing trade_id and amount usage, clarifying partial exit semantics. It does not elaborate on order_type beyond the schema, but the examples imply market order.

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 ('Manually exit (force-sell) an open trade') and differentiates from normal exits by noting it 'bypasses the strategy exit signals'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_trade or get_open_trades.

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 for when to use this tool (manual override of strategy) and supports both full and partial exits via examples. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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