Standard Tools: getAllPositions

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds the cross-network scope and optional filtering, which provides behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential large result sizes or performance implications.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Get ALL conditional trade positions across ALL networks'), and contains no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

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 list with one optional filter and good annotations, the description covers the essential: what it returns and how to filter. It does not mention pagination or data volume, but given the simplicity, it is largely complete for tool selection.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'status' with enum values and description. The description only restates the optional filter without adding new meaning or format details, thus not exceeding the baseline.

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 'Get ALL conditional trade positions across ALL networks' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself by emphasizing the cross-network scope, differentiating from per-network or per-position siblings like listPositions or findPositionById.

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 implies usage for fetching all positions globally with optional filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for specific network or user positions). No exclusion criteria or alternative mentions are provided.

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