close_all_positions

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 openly discloses the destructive nature ('liquidate your entire portfolio'), the additional side effect of canceling all open orders, and the return value (count of positions closed). This is excellent transparency for a high-impact action.

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 compact—four short sentences—with each sentence earning its place: the core action, the caution, the secondary effect, and the return value. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and warning.

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-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the critical side effect, the cancellation of orders, and the return value. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to invoke it safely is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Close all open positions') and goes further by noting it also cancels all open orders, distinguishing it from siblings like close_position and cancel_all_orders. The scope is unambiguous: the entire portfolio is affected.

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 warning 'Use with extreme caution - this will liquidate your entire portfolio' clearly communicates the gravity and the only sensible condition for use: an intentional full exit. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the description's scope and the sibling list make it obvious when this tool is appropriate versus close_position or cancel_all_orders.

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