okx_close_grid_position

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

The description provides almost no behavioral details beyond the '[L:WRITE]' tag indicating a write. There are no annotations to supplement. It does not disclose effects (e.g., position removed, potential losses), reversibility, authorization needs, or rate limits. The agent is left in the dark about what this operation does.

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 extremely concise (one line). It uses structured tags [L:WRITE] and CAT: for categorization. However, the brevity sacrifices completeness and clarity, as critical behavioral information is omitted. It is front-loaded but not optimally structured for agent comprehension.

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 tool that closes a grid position (a potentially irreversible action), the description is severely lacking. It fails to explain the operation's implications, return values, or required preconditions beyond calling agent_catalog. With no output schema and minimal description, the agent cannot properly assess the tool's suitability.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with its own descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no further meaning to the parameters (algoId, algoOrdType) beyond what the schema already provides. No extra context or formatting hints.

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 does not explicitly state 'close a grid position' beyond the tool name. The 'CAT:[策略-网格]' and '[L:WRITE]' tags indicate it's a write operation in the grid strategy category, but the core action is implied rather than stated. This confuses the purpose for an agent unfamiliar with the tool.

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 description includes a prerequisite ('→ 请先调用 agent_catalog'), which provides some usage context. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., stop_grid_order), and does not state when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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