listPositionsList conditional trade positions. If network is provided, lists positions for that specific network. If no network is provided, lists ALL positions across all supported networks (Solana, Ethereum, BSC, Polygon, Hedera, Base).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Optional: Filter by position status | |
| network | No | Specific network to list positions for. If omitted, lists across all networks. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral detail about network handling (all networks vs. specific), which is valuable. It does not contradict annotations, and the read-only nature is consistent. No pagination or return details, but the bar is lower given 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes essential network behavior without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 no output schema, the description covers the core behavior (network filtering) and the schema covers status filtering. While return structure is not described, the tool's purpose is straightforward and annotations handle safety. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the network parameter's behavior (all networks when omitted), and clarifies the tool's purpose as 'conditional trade positions' which gives context to the status filter. This extra semantic value justifies a 4.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List conditional trade positions') and clearly defines scope via network behavior, distinguishing it from siblings like findPositionById and getAllPositions. It states that omitting network lists positions across all supported networks, which adds clarity.
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 clear usage context for the network parameter (specific network vs. all networks) and implies this is the tool for listing conditional trade positions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With 113 tools spanning many chains and asset classes, there is substantial overlap. For example, listPositions and getAllPositions appear to serve the same function, and there are many balance, token discovery, and collection data tools that differ mostly by chain or protocol, making misselection likely.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: most tools use camelCase with a verb (baseGetBalances, ethSwapQuote), but some use underscores (nansen_defi_portfolio), others are just bare nouns (wallet, rugcheck), and there are irregularities like solanaBalances instead of solanaGetBalances, plus hederaTokensSwapQuote vs. baseSwapQuote.
The server exposes 113 tools, far beyond the typical well-scoped set. This is an extreme mismatch with the apparent purpose of a wallet/swap server, making discovery and selection difficult for agents.
While the server offers extensive read-only data (balances, market data, NFTs, positions), it lacks core write operations: there is no actual swap execution or token transfer tool, and the referenced emblemCreateVault tool is missing. These are significant gaps that will prevent agents from completing common wallet actions.