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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about pricing (x402 challenge) and the 'Signer boundary' – hosted reads never receive keypair bytes. This is valuable beyond annotations, but some details like time-lag or data freshness are missing. 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?

The description is relatively concise for its content, leading with the primary purpose. The SAP execution guidance block is necessary for this tool's context but adds length. It could be slightly more streamlined, but overall it's well-structured with important details.

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 tool has an output schema, the description need not detail return values, and it provides enough about inputs (wallet, token) and a hint about output fields. The SAP execution guidance is relevant for a paid hosted call. It is complete enough for an agent to understand how to invoke it, though more on data freshness would be nice.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema. However, the overall description explains what the returned fields represent (P&L, size, liquidiation price, etc.), which adds context for how the parameters are used. The baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, but the description provides some marginal value by listing the output fields.

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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch', the specific resource 'live position status', and the domain 'Adrena Data API'. It lists the key return fields in parentheses and specifies the required inputs (wallet, token), making its purpose distinct from siblings like 'adrena_getPositions' or 'sap_adrena_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 a read/discovery workflow, which aligns with the annotation readOnlyHint. The SAP execution guidance section provides explicit routing instructions (paid hosted call, call estimate first), but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like 'sap_adrena_get_positions' or 'adrena_getPositions'. It does mention to use sap_payments_call_paid_tool if x402 is not supported, which is helpful.

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