chainvectorPositioning

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the data content but does not state whether this is a read-only query, how the history parameter affects the response, what the return format looks like, pagination, or any rate limits/authentication needs. The interpretive note about contrarian tells is useful but not behavioral transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines the data scope, and the second sentence provides a valuable contrarian interpretation. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core resource.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return values and behavior more completely. It does not mention how history mode changes the response, what the snapshot vs time series looks like, or how 'per venue' is represented in the output. The description is too thin for a 4-parameter tool with no structured output documentation.

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 semantic context for the 'metric' parameter by explaining global vs top-trader ratios, which helps interpret the enum values. However, it adds little beyond the schema for 'history', 'interval', and 'symbol', which are already well-documented.

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 resource: ChainVector exchange-reported positioning with global account long/short ratio and top-trader account/position ratios per venue. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', but the data scope is specific and informative. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like chainvectorLongShort, so it does not fully distinguish itself.

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 a usage context: crowded retail positioning against top traders is a contrarian tell, suggesting when the tool's data might be useful. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative tools. This is implied rather than explicit.

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