Sell every demo position at the simulated price after human approval, flattening all open demo trades in one action.
[TAS Guard: needs human approval] Sell every demo position at the simulated price.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds important context beyond that: human approval is required and the operation is on demo positions at simulated prices, which communicates the safety and sandbox profile. It stops short of explaining reversibility or behavior when no positions exist.
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?
One compact sentence with a guard prefix, front-loading the approval requirement before the action. No wasted words.
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 zero-param, destructive tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers the action, the simulated environment, and the approval requirement. A minor gap is the lack of detail about what happens if no positions are open.
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?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The schema is fully covered (100%) and no parameter details are needed from the description.
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?
States a specific verb (Sell), resource (every demo position), and price context (simulated price). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like place_stock_order (single order) and cancel_all_orders (orders, not positions).
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?
Implied usage is to close all demo positions, and it notes the human approval requirement as a condition. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it, so guidance is only partial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.