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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable context: it details what live=true adds (current_bid_cents and mark_cents) and what those fields mean for selling and unrealized P&L. It also explains that recently_settled covers bets settled in the last 24 hours and tells the agent to relay that. No safety or auth behavior is contradicted, though rate limits are not discussed.

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 front-loaded with the resource and key fields, and the 'start here' directive appears early. It is dense but mostly earns its place, though the trailing recently_settled instruction feels tacked on and could be structured more cleanly.

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 output schema exists, the agent does not need return values explained, yet the description helpfully clarifies the live behavior and recently_settled meaning. The main gap is the unexplained full parameter, but with only two optional booleans and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete 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 50%: live has a short schema description, while full is undocumented. The description compensates for live by explaining what live=true adds and the default, but it says nothing about the full parameter, leaving half the parameters without semantic clarification.

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 names the specific resource (open positions) and lists the key fields returned (stake, instrument_id, bet, payout_if_win_dollars, loss_if_lose_dollars, web_url), so the agent knows what this tool fetches. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_orders or get_balance, though 'start here' implies it is the primary entry point for 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 phrase 'start here' gives explicit guidance to use this tool first, which is a clear when-to-use signal. It also explains the default behavior of live=true and instructs the agent to surface recently_settled information, but it does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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