Standard Tools: listPositions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description carries less burden. It explains the conditional listing behavior, which is already in schema descriptions. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits) are disclosed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity and rich annotations, the description covers the main behavior and filtering logic. However, no output schema is provided, and the description does not mention the return format, which is a 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the network parameter behavior. No enrichment for the 'status' parameter.

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?

Description clearly states 'List conditional trade positions' and explains the conditional behavior based on network parameter. It also lists supported networks, making the tool's scope unambiguous. This differentiates it from siblings like 'getAllPositions' and '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 explains when to use the network parameter but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings such as 'getAllPositions' or 'findPositionById'. Usage context is implied but not thoroughly directed.

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