position

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

The description explicitly states that close and closeAll are destructive and require confirm, which directly contradicts the annotation destructiveHint=false. This is a serious inconsistency, earning a score of 1. The additional mentions of normalized reads and pagination are helpful but do not override the contradiction.

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 a single, dense sentence that quickly lists the main action categories and key caveats. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, but the '[VERB]' placeholder feels incomplete and slightly detracts from an otherwise concise structure.

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?

Given the tool's 13 parameters, lack of output schema, and only moderate annotation coverage, the description gives a solid overview but omits several operational details (e.g., fetchAll, view, fields). It covers the core actions and destructive requirements, but more context about pagination behavior and parameter interdependencies would improve completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal context beyond the schema, such as 'reads are normalized' and 'history paginates', but the action descriptions in the schema already explain the parameter semantics in detail. The description does not significantly reduce ambiguity about the 13 parameters.

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 acts on positions by intent, enumerating specific actions (info, history, adlRank, close, closeAll) and clarifying that close targets one symbol while closeAll targets a whole category. This distinguishes it from siblings like order or account_overview, though the placeholder '[VERB]' is slightly unpolished.

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 context on when to use it (e.g., for position management) and warns that close/closeAll are destructive and require confirmation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for placing orders, use order' — making the guidance implied rather than fully explicit.

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