Exchange Positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: data is 'cached up to 120s,' the 24h flow window is specified, and the PNL is split into gross profits/losses. This gives an agent reasonable expectations about freshness and aggregation behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core scope, enumerates the specific data included, and closes with illustrative questions and cache behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important semantic points appear before examples. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

With only one optional parameter and a full schema description, the definition is largely complete. It covers the data scope, the time window, the aggregation level, the PNL split, and caching. It does not enumerate supported DEX names or describe the exact response shape, but no output schema exists and the core calling context is sufficiently specified.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter useToonFormat, including its default and meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but the schema carries the full burden already. Baseline 3 is appropriate since nothing is missing, yet the description does not add extra semantic value.

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 identifies a specific deliverable: exchange-wide position vitals per DEX, including open positions, wallet counts, 24h closed positions, liquidations, and total realized PNL with gross profit/loss split. It differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing 'across the whole exchange' and 'by dex,' which separates it from market-level or cohort-level position tools. The example questions make the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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 gives clear usage context via example questions ('how many positions are open on Hyperliquid?', 'did traders collectively make or lose money today?'), which tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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