position_close_all

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 mentions 'at current market prices' (implying market orders) and the scope 'every open position,' but omits critical traits such as whether the action is irreversible, whether it also cancels open orders, or potential slippage. This lack of detail is notable for a high-impact liquidation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and scope. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

While an output schema exists (which may document return values), the description lacks essential context for a bulk liquidation tool. It does not address edge cases like empty accounts, partial fills, or whether open orders are also cancelled. For an agent to invoke this tool safely, more context is needed.

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 by explaining parameters. It implicitly covers the required 'account' parameter via 'in an account,' but leaves 'agent' and 'idempotency_key' completely unexplained. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural definitions.

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 'Liquidate every open position in an account at current market prices' uses a specific verb (Liquidate) and resource (every open position in an account), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like position_close, which likely handles a single position, and order_cancel_all, which cancels orders.

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 implies usage when the user wants to close all positions in an account, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like position_close or order_cancel_all. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving the usage context to be inferred.

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