close_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool submits a market or limit order rather than directly modifying a position. But it omits order lifecycle details such as whether a limit order can remain open, what happens if the position does not exist, and whether a confirmation or order ID is returned.

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 with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the mechanism is stated immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low parameter complexity and complete schema, the description is mostly adequate for invoking the call. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from stating what the response contains and any order lifecycle caveats, especially for limit orders.

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 100%, so the schema already documents instrument_name, type, and price. The description adds minimal value beyond confirming that type can be market or limit and that the goal is flattening, which maps to existing schema fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States exact verb (close), resource (existing position), scope (entirely), and mechanism (places market/limit order to flatten). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like buy/sell, cancel_order, and get_positions.

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 when to use it: when an existing position needs to be flattened entirely. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it, such as for partial closes or routine buy/sell orders, and it names no alternative tools, leaving some routing to inference.

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