Perfect Exits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: MFE capture is capped at 100, results are filtered to material positions with a real favorable move, and the returned fields are enumerated. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, the MFE acronym expanded, and no filler. Slightly redundant with the schema on minPnl's noise-filtering role, but otherwise 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers return values. Combined with full param documentation in the schema and read-only annotations, the selection logic, filters, and the cap edge case are all disclosed. Minor gap: 'real favorable move' is not quantitatively defined, but this is not blocking for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters. The description reinforces minPnl ('material positions') and minCapturePct (MFE capture %) but adds little beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Find... closed perp positions') plus a precise selection criterion (high MFE capture fraction). The 'well-timed exits' framing and the return-field list (entry/exit/MFE prices, realized PnL, capture %) make its purpose unambiguous and distinct from generic closed-position siblings like pulse_recent_closed_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?

Clear context is given: this is for identifying well-timed exits filtered to material positions (minPnl) with a real favorable move. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use it (e.g., no comparison to pulse_recent_closed_positions or pulse_trader_closed_positions for raw exit listings), leaving sibling differentiation implicit.

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