close_position

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely delivers: it discloses the order type (market), the direction logic (sell for long, buy for short), and the full-scope liquidation ('all shares'). It stops short of edge cases such as behavior when no position exists, but the essential execution traits are transparent.

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?

Three compact sentences with the purpose line front-loaded. The Args block is partially redundant with the schema but earns its place because it is the only source of parameter semantics; every sentence contributes either purpose, parameter meaning, or execution behavior.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, execution behavior, and parameter meaning. Missing only minor edge-case disclosure (e.g., what happens when the position does not exist), which does not block correct invocation.

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 must compensate, and the Args block does: 'Stock symbol to close position for' clarifies both the value type (stock symbol) and its role (identifies the position being closed). This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema title 'Symbol.'

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?

Opens with a specific verb + resource + scope: 'Close an entire position for a symbol.' The second sentence further specifies mechanics (market order, sell for long, buy for short, all shares), which distinguishes it from sibling close_all_positions and read-only get_position. An agent can identify exactly what this tool does without inspecting the schema.

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 phrase 'entire position for a symbol' plus 'all shares of the position' gives clear situational context: use when fully liquidating a single position rather than partially closing or liquidating everything. However, it never explicitly names alternatives like close_all_positions or place_market_order for partial exits, so no explicit exclusions are stated.

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