get_defi_positions

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: it returns extracted position summaries (deposits, borrows, liquidity, fees) rather than raw on-chain data. However, it offers no detail on permissions, pagination, or behavior for addresses with no positions.

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 compact at two sentences, starts with the action, and includes an enumerated list of protocols without extraneous language. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The description outlines the tool's scope and the nature of the returned data, which is important because no output schema is provided. It could be more explicit about return edge cases (e.g., empty positions) or network-specific behavior, but the schema's full coverage of network/address parameters helps. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke the tool.

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 documents both parameters (address and network) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description doesn't add any additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: finding DeFi positions owned by a Sui wallet. It enumerates covered protocols (Suilend, Cetus LP, NAVI, Scallop, Bluefin, Bucket, and staked SUI), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_balance or get_staking_summary. The verb 'Find' and resource 'DeFi positions' are specific.

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 usage when a wallet's DeFi positions across specific protocols are needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_wallet_overview or get_staking_summary. There are no stated exclusions or alternative tool recommendations.

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