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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does disclose a meaningful limitation (Adrena PnL is null when mark prices are unavailable) and lists classification and risk flags. However, it never explicitly confirms this is a read-only operation, and the 'Open positions' phrasing leaves ambiguity about whether it executes trades.

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 four dense sentences, each adding distinct information: purpose, venue breakdown, classification/risk flags, and the Adrena PnL caveat. There is no filler, and the most important purpose appears first.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main return elements well: per-venue positions, combined totals, tags, classification, directional bias, exposure flag, risk flags, and a specific edge case. It could mention empty-wallet behavior or the top-level return shape, but the coverage is strong.

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 input schema already fully describes the single 'address' parameter as a Solana wallet address, and the description adds minimal semantic value beyond restating 'wallet'. No format, validity, or network details are added.

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 states the tool provides open positions across Jupiter Perps and Adrena for a wallet, and it distinguishes itself from siblings by naming both venues and enumerating rich output fields. However, it lacks an explicit retrieval verb like 'Gets' or 'Lists', and 'Open positions' could be misread as an action rather than a noun phrase.

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 implies it should be used for wallet-level perps positions across Jupiter and Adrena, but it never explicitly states when to use it over sibling tools such as hyperliquid_trader_profile or perps_venue_comparison. There are no usage exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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