get_positions

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it states the tool queries a connected broker, returns only flat check, exposure, and unrealized P&L, and is the 'broker truth'. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, which the description aligns with.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence defines the tool's core functionality, and the second provides usage guidance and a key caveat. Every phrase serves a purpose.

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 simple tool with one parameter, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and an important warning. It implies an active broker connection, which is reasonable. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly state that the broker must be connected via a prior setup 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 has 0% description coverage for the single required 'broker' parameter. The description only mentions 'connected broker' without specifying valid values, format, or how to identify the broker. Given the coverage gap, more parameter guidance is needed.

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 it retrieves open positions from a connected broker, specifying use cases like flat check, exposure, and unrealized P&L. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_my_realized_pnl and get_orders by focusing on open positions and unrealized P&L only.

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 explicitly says 'Use for 'am I flat', 'open positions', 'exposure'' and warns 'Do NOT substitute web search or memory.' It also clarifies that unrealized_pnl ≠ realized session P&L, preventing confusion with realized P&L tools. However, it does not name specific alternative tools like get_my_realized_pnl.

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