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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns real open positions with live sl_price/tp_price, virtual positions, and closed round-trips, which gives a clear picture of what the agent will receive. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or edge cases like data freshness, but for a 0-parameter getter, the provided behavioral context is strong and goes beyond a simple verb.

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 dense but well-organized, with a clear lead-in 'Axis③ (Order/Execution)' followed by specifics. Every sentence earns its place: it lists data types, differentiates from a sibling, and gives usage context. Slightly long due to the repeated mention of axes, but not wasteful.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential return-value context (real/virtual positions, closed round-trips, stop/target data). It also covers why this tool matters for decision-making. For a simple read-only listing tool, this is comprehensive.

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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. As per the baseline for 0-param tools, this is scored high since the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps. The absence of parameters is clear from the empty input schema.

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 identifies this as a tool for retrieving the user's actual trading exposure, specifically listing real open futures positions, virtual/paper positions, and recent closed round-trips. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool decker.get_signals ('axis②, what the engine recommends') by explicitly stating it shows 'what your money actually did', making it unambiguous which tool to use.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'use this before deciding whether to place another order (avoid duplicate/over-exposure) and to check current protective stop/target on a real position.' It also names the alternative (decker.get_signals) and clarifies the difference in axes, effectively telling when to use this vs that.

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