Recent Closed Positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: global scope over all traders, the recency window, the fact that entry/exit prices and hold duration are returned, and the available filters. 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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, contents, and use cases. The key scope ('across all traders') and core resource are front-loaded, and the use-case list is compact and skimmable.

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 read-only list tool with seven optional parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the global scope, and the main filtering use cases. The default behaviors (limit=50, since=1h) are already in the schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping parameters to use cases: maxDuration=1000 for HFT, minNotional=100000 for large positions, and the hold duration range. This is meaningful extra semantic guidance on how to combine filters.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Get' and the precise resource 'recently closed positions across all traders.' The 'across all traders' scope distinguishes it from per-trader and per-cohort siblings, and 'closed positions' separates it from trade-level tools like pulse_recent_trades.

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 provides explicit use cases ('Use to find:') with concrete parameter suggestions: sub-second HFT trades via maxDuration=1000, stopped-out positions, large closed positions via minNotional=100000, and scalps vs long holds. It does not, however, name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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