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

With no annotations the description carries full burden; 'get' plus 'ACTIVE positions' implies a read, and it describes the content returned (cost basis, leaderboard row, agent id). It says nothing about auth/prerequisites for the account, whether a zero-position account returns empty vs error, or freshness of marks.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then three tight routing clauses; nothing is wasted. The telegraphic 'marks / PnL are get_pnl' phrasing is compressed nearly to the point of ambiguity but still parses.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description sketches the return content and disambiguates the neighborhood well. The remaining gap is the account parameter format and empty-result behavior, which an agent would want before calling.

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 0% for the single `account` parameter, so the description must compensate. It conveys that the account is the lookup subject and that its ERC-8004 agent id is surfaced, but never states the expected format (address vs agent id vs handle), which is the key ambiguity for this param.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'ACTIVE positions: open positions, cost basis and leaderboard row of an account', plus the ERC-8004 agent id nuance. The 'ACTIVE' qualifier immediately separates it from the historical sibling get_history.

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?

Explicitly routes three related intents to alternatives: 'Past activity is get_history; marks / PnL are get_pnl; exit before expiry with close_quote.' The conditions selecting each sibling are named, not implied.

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