close_all_positions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: partial success reporting, idempotency (no double selling), paper account simulation (closed=false, simulated=true), and audit log writing. This is exceptionally 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?

Four sentences, each providing distinct value: purpose, partial success behavior, paper account behavior, and audit logging. It is front-loaded and free of padding.

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?

The description covers many important edge cases (partial success, idempotency, paper trading, audit log) but does not describe the normal response structure or error handling for invalid account_id. Still, it is fairly complete for a complex trading operation.

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 coverage is only 33%; the description compensates by explaining the special 'all' value for account_id and noting idempotency which relates to idempotency_key. However, request_id remains unexplained.

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 action: canceling open orders and selling base asset balances at market price, with scope ('all' accounts). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like place_order or get_open_orders by focusing on liquidation.

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 for closing positions but never explicitly says when to use it vs. alternatives. It provides special-case context (all accounts, paper accounts) but no direct 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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