Get positions

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

The description discloses that data is mock, paper trading only, and specifies the exact information returned for each venue (unrealized PnL, liquidation distance, etc.). With no annotations, it adequately covers behavioral traits for a read-only listing tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value and is efficient.

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 and no output schema, the description covers all essential information: purpose, venue-specific responses, and execution context (paper trading, not financial advice). No gaps for agent decision-making.

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 schema provides the parameter venue with enum and description, but the description adds meaningful details about what each venue value returns (futures vs pm specifics), enhancing the agent's understanding 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 clearly states the tool lists open and historical positions for a venue, with specific details on the two venue types. It distinguishes itself from other tools like open_futures_position or close_futures_position by focusing on listing, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 mentions this is for paper trading only with virtual funds, providing context on when to use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives like get_portfolio or get_wallet for similar purposes.

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