Get Positions

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states that 'status=closed currently returns an empty set' and that positions are mark-to-market. This is valuable because the schema allows closed/all statuses but the implementation has a caveat. Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which aligns with the 'Retrieve' verb. No contradictions found.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the most important caveat. There is no wasted text; every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description conveys the main purpose and a key behavioral quirk. It does not explain the return fields, but the term 'positions' plus the schema's parameter documentation offer sufficient context. The annotation readOnlyHint further clarifies the safety profile. It is complete enough for most use cases, though a brief mention of the response shape would have been ideal.

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 provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any details about parameter formats or types beyond what the schema provides. It only mentions 'optional filtering' generically, which does not increase meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('live open portfolio positions') with a clear scoping detail (mark-to-market). It also distinguishes itself by noting the behavior of status=closed. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_portfolio, which may serve a similar purpose.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_portfolio or get_portfolio_history. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or exclusion criteria. The usage context (live positions) is implied but not contrasted with options.

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