nansen: nansen_perp_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'current' and 'held by smart money' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the key verb and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence is necessary.

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 read-only tool with 3 parameters and clear annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists and the expected result (list of positions) is inferable. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or output structure.

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% with all three parameters documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions (e.g., 'Token symbol (e.g. 'BTC', 'ETH', 'SOL')'). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'Hyperliquid perpetual positions' and specifies the source 'smart money' and scope 'for a specific token'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like nansen_smart_money_holdings by mentioning 'perpetual positions'.

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 clearly states what the tool does but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like nansen_smart_money_holdings or other nansen tools. No 'when-not' or alternative tool names are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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