Close Funding Farm Position

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

Annotations already flag destructive and non-idempotent behavior; the description adds critical context: 'places a REAL closing order', the requirement of an API key, and the preview/confirm workflow. This goes well beyond the annotations and informs the agent of real-world consequences.

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?

Two concise sentences that lead with the action, then cover prerequisites and safety. No filler; each clause adds necessary information for correct usage.

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's destructive nature and the existence of an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, and the confirmation workflow. It is complete for agent decision-making, especially within the context of sibling trading tools.

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 single parameter 'confirm' is fully explained: preview with false, execute with true. The schema only provides a default, so the description adds essential meaning and usage semantics, fully compensating for the 0% schema 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Close the funding-farm position previously opened by this tool'. It also clarifies scope ('both legs for hedged mode'), distinguishing it from siblings like open_funding_position, check_position, and print_close.

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 step-by-step usage: 'Call with confirm=false first to preview; only confirm=true after the user approves.' Also states the prerequisite of PACIFICA_API_KEY, giving clear guidance on when and how to invoke the tool safely.

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