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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description reaffirms and expands on this by detailing exactly what is returned (collateral/loan, LTV, APY, etc.), what is excluded (cost-basis/P&L), ordering (newest first), and the relationship to equityPositions. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 efficiently structured: it leads with the verb and resource, lists the key return fields, notes exclusions, states ordering, and clarifies related terms. Each sentence earns its place with no redundancy, and the length is justified given the number of details conveyed.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully enumerates the returned data fields, ordering, exclusions, and the distinction between positions and equityPositions. For a read-only tool with only two simple parameters, this is a complete and self-sufficient description that leaves no critical ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters have clear descriptions (chainId with supported values and default, userAddress for the wallet). The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('wallet's open/closed Spiral leverage positions'), and distinguishes itself from transaction-building siblings. It clearly differentiates between 'positions' and 'equityPositions', making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (to read position data) and explicitly states when not to use it (when cost-basis or realized P&L is needed, as those require off-chain history). It clarifies that equityPositions is separated from positions, guiding proper interpretation. It does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly, but the context makes the usage clear.

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