get_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get all open positions' implies a read operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns real-time or cached data, includes pagination, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise at three words: 'Get all open positions.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, contains zero wasted words, and efficiently communicates the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves important context gaps. It doesn't specify what 'open positions' means in this domain (trading/financial context suggested by sibling tools), what format the data returns, or whether there are any constraints on usage. The description meets basic requirements but could be more complete.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately doesn't mention parameters that don't exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 'Get all open positions' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('open positions'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools like 'get_account_info' or 'get_history' that might also retrieve position-related data, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_account_info' and 'get_history' that might overlap in retrieving position data, there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other retrieval operations.

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