pulse_cohort_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool returns 'real-time' positions, but does not mention any other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or what happens when no positions exist. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for a data-fetching 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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place. The example immediately clarifies the kind of cohorts available. Ideal conciseness for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Despite high schema coverage, the description omits details about the output (no output schema), the 'useToonFormat' parameter, and the 'limit' parameter. It does not explain how 'tierType' interacts with 'tier'. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be fully self-contained, leaving the agent to infer too much from the schema alone.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by giving real-world examples ('apex', 'heavyweights') that map to the 'tier' enum, but it does not explain the 'tierType' parameter or the 'limit' default. It does not complement the schema's own parameter descriptions significantly.

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 retrieves live positions for a specific trader cohort, using a concrete verb ('see what...is holding') and resource ('positions'). The example with 'apex' and 'heavyweights' adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pulse_cohort_recent_positions' or 'pulse_cohort_summary', missing an opportunity to stand out.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools that could serve related purposes (e.g., 'pulse_cohort_trades' for trade history, 'pulse_cohort_bias' for directional bias). The example is illustrative but not prescriptive.

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