Standard Tools: listPositions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, making safety clear. The description adds context about the network-dependent behavior, but does not reveal other traits (e.g., no mention of pagination or limits). Annotations carry the transparency burden.

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, front-loaded with the main action, then conditional logic. Every word earns its place. No redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with clear annotations and schema, the description covers the key behavior. However, it does not clarify what 'conditional trade positions' means (suggesting jargon) and lacks mention of pagination or ordering. Minor gap.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the network parameter's behavior when omitted (lists all), which goes beyond the schema. Status parameter is adequately described in 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 conditional trade positions, with explicit scope: filtering by network or listing all across supported networks. It distinguishes from siblings like 'findPositionById' and 'getAllPositions' by specifying the conditional nature and network filtering.

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?

Provides explicit when to use: if network provided, filter; if omitted, list all. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives like 'getAllPositions' or 'findPositionById', but the context is clear for the main use case.

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