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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'close all positions' which is a key destructive trait, and it shows the return type as 'Dict with close order details or error.' However, it lacks additional context such as whether the close is executed at market price, whether it requires an existing position, or any side effects like fees or slippage. This is basic but not rich.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. It opens with a one-sentence purpose, then clearly separates Args and Returns. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. The inclusion of a concrete parameter example is valuable without bloating the text.

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 single-parameter tool, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return type. The existence of an output schema means the return format details need not be explained. The main omission is prerequisites or side effects, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, this does not significantly detract from completeness.

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 input schema only lists 'symbol' with no description, so the description adds essential meaning by providing a format example: 'e.g., "BTC/USDC:USDC"'. This clarifies the expected structure (base/quote with separator) and gives a concrete example, fully compensating for the schema's 0% coverage.

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 what the tool does: 'Close all positions for the specified trading pair on Hyperliquid.' It uses a specific verb (close) and resource (positions for a trading pair), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like place_order and cancel_open_orders by focusing on closing positions entirely.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as place_order or cancel_open_orders. It simply states the function without any context about scenarios (e.g., 'use this to exit a position entirely' or 'not for partial closures'). There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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