sell

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds behavioral context: units decrease, cost_avg unchanged, cash repaid based on cost currency. However, it omits side effects like losing the asset or potential tax implications, and does not clarify whether the operation is reversible.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core action and key effects without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the main verb ('减仓').

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 the tool has 3 required parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basic effect but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., existing holding), the meaning of 'price', and what happens if conditions aren't met (e.g., insufficient units). It is minimally complete for a simple sell.

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 0%, so the description bears full responsibility for parameter meaning. It only mentions 'units' (reducing units) and 'cost_currency' (which is not a parameter). It does not explain the role of 'price' or 'symbol', leaving the agent without critical usage information.

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 tool reduces positions ('减仓'), specifying that units decrease while cost_avg remains unchanged, and cash is returned. This is a specific verb+resource action that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'buy' (which increases positions) and other operations.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must hold the asset), conditions (e.g., sufficient units), or exclusions (e.g., short selling). The description only explains internal mechanics.

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