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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/no-destroy), so the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the two-tier finality model, that provisional rows appear seconds after inclusion, that finalized rows are ~20-24 min behind head and are the only settlement truth, and that provisional rows move balances only while cost-basis/aggregates stay finalized-tier.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core purpose and the valuation opt-in come first, then the finality semantics. Every sentence carries load, though the finality paragraph is packed tightly enough to reward slow reading.

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?

An output schema exists, so raw return shapes need not be re-explained, yet the description still supplies the field-level semantics an agent needs (units, 0-1 price scale, finality column, provisional vs finalized columns). The only material gap is pagination behavior via limit/cursor.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate; it does add real meaning for the highlighted parameter (include="valuation" toggles currentPrices 0-1 and markValue) and clarifies the units of totalSpent/totalReceived/cost basis. It still leaves limit, cursor, chainId and marketAddress semantically undocumented, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get token positions for a wallet address') and immediately scopes the content: share balances plus cost-basis ledger fields. It distinguishes itself from the sibling list (e.g. problee_get_balance, problee_get_market_holders) by naming the ledger and valuation layers rather than a generic balance read.

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 tells the agent how to opt into valuation (include="valuation") and warns that mark prices may lag the chain, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when to use this tool versus a sibling like problee_get_balance or problee_get_market_holders, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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