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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, so the description reiterates read-only. However, it adds valuable behavioral context: the data fields returned (collateral/loan, leveraged collateral, net equity, debt, LTV, leverage, USD value, APY), the ordering (newest first), and the limitation (no cost-basis/realized P&L). This goes beyond what annotations 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 description is concise and well-structured, with the most important information first. It consists of three sentences that pack a lot of detail without extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.

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 is provided, but the description compensates by listing the data fields returned (collateral/loan, leveraged collateral, net equity, etc.). It also mentions ordering and limitations. For a read-only query tool with moderate complexity, this is sufficient.

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 100%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are clear (userAddress as wallet address, chainId with default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool reads a wallet's open/closed leverage positions from chain state (read-only), specifies it's read-only, and lists the data returned. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating what it does not provide (cost-basis/realized P&L), making the purpose 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 indicates when to use (to read positions) and explicitly mentions what it does not provide (cost-basis/realized P&L), implying those are handled elsewhere. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the list of siblings provides context.

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