binance_futures_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. It discloses irreversibility, market slippage risk, margin release, and supports both one-way and two-way position modes. It lacks explicit permission/authorization requirements but covers the key operational consequences well.

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 well-structured with emoji section headers, but is quite long, especially the extensive output example. It is front-loaded with the core function and warnings, but the length borders on verbose for a tool that could be summarized more succinctly.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates with a detailed output example covering fill details, fees, PnL, margin changes, and suggestions. It covers use cases, warnings, and behavior, but could mention error cases or prerequisites like account permissions.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context about auto-calculating direction/quantity and supporting both position modes, which aligns with the schema parameters. But it does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema's already clear descriptions.

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 it performs market-price one-click closing of all positions for a specified contract, with automatic direction and quantity calculation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like place_order or cancel_order by focusing specifically on closing existing 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?

Explicit '适用场景' section lists when to use (emergency stop loss, market reversal, strategy adjustment, risk management). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or alternatives, but the scenarios are concrete and actionable.

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