get_positionsOpen positions on the HYPERneobroker.com paper trading desk (Alpaca paper account): ticker, qty, market value, unrealized P&L per position.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description need not repeat that. It adds meaningful context: the data source (Alpaca paper account) and that only currently open positions are returned with market value and unrealized P&L. It does not discuss ordering, pagination, or error behavior, but given the simple getter this is acceptable.
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 a single sentence of roughly 20 words, with the core resource stated up front and the output fields following. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
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 zero-parameter, read-only getter with no output schema, the description covers the source, scope (open positions), and output metrics. The only minor gap is a clear routing direction versus get_portfolio, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a critical omission.
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?
There are no input parameters, so the schema fully covers the interface. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing or documenting arguments that do not exist.
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 resource ('open positions on the HYPERneobroker.com paper trading desk') and enumerates the returned fields (ticker, qty, market value, unrealized P&L). This makes the tool's purpose clear and naturally sets it apart from sibling getters like get_fx_rates or get_price. It does not explicitly contrast with get_portfolio, but the per-position detail is sufficient for basic differentiation.
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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives. In particular, it fails to help an agent decide between this and the sibling get_portfolio. The usage context is only implied by the words 'open positions', with no explicit guidance.
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.
Each tool addresses a distinct data domain: FX rates, perpetual futures, portfolio summary, open positions, prediction markets, and general prices. There is minor potential overlap between get_price and get_perp_prices for crypto assets, but the distinction between spot/current price and perpetual futures is clear enough.
All tool names follow a consistent get_<resource> pattern in snake_case. Some resources are plural and some singular, but that is natural given the noun being fetched, so the naming is predictable and uniform.
Six tools is a well-scoped set for a market data and portfolio monitoring server. Each tool provides a distinct, useful capability without unnecessary bloat or an overly thin surface.
The server exposes only getter operations: no order placement, cancellation, position closing, or historical account activity. Given the broker/paper trading context implied by the server name and portfolio tools, the lack of any trading lifecycle actions is a significant gap.