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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it explains the real vs. virtual modes, live sl_price/tp_price, vs_verdict, knots, the order-not-probability distinction, and when exit_levels appear. This is substantially more than the structured fields provide.

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 content is useful and front-loaded with the core resource, but the first sentence is extremely dense and packed with parentheticals. It earns most of its length given the lack of an output schema, though readability could be improved.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the return categories, mode distinctions, and interpretation cues needed to call and understand it. Nothing critical appears missing.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4; the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 precisely: real open futures positions, virtual paper positions, and the last 10 closed round-trips per mode. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from decker.get_signals, so an agent can identify its scope without opening the empty schema.

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 gives concrete when-to-use guidance: check before placing another order to avoid duplicate/over-exposure, and inspect live protective stop/target on a real position. It also names the relevant alternative (decker.get_signals) and explains the difference in purpose.

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