get_position_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get position history', implying a read operation, but does not describe the output format, pagination behavior, or whether it returns all history or filtered. This is insufficient for a tool with no output schema.

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?

At two words, the description is concise but overly minimal. It sacrifices informativeness for brevity, lacking any context or structure that helps the agent use the tool effectively.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and the tool's nature (history), the description should explain what is returned (e.g., historical positions with timestamps, pnl). It fails to do so, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding.

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 has 100% parameter coverage (limit and symbol are both described). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply repeats the parameter names implicitly. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides clarity.

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 'Get position history' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (position history), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_positions (current positions) and get_position_by_symbol (single current position). However, 'history' is vague and could imply historical trades or historical position values.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_positions (for current positions) or get_all_positions. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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