mv_get_position_map

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

Discloses parallel calls, honest failure reporting, and specific detection features. No side effects or destructive actions are needed, but lacks details on data freshness or rate limits. Without annotations, the description is fairly transparent.

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, a bulleted feature list, and usage guidance. Each sentence adds value, though slightly lengthy for a tool description.

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?

Complex tool without output schema. Description outlines output contents (summaries, totals, contradictions) but lacks specifics on format or structure. Adequate but could be more precise for agent invocation.

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%, and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema. The description mentions omitting chain scans all, but the schema already states that. No additional parameter insight.

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 'Cross-protocol position map' and lists specific capabilities (per-protocol summaries, governance tokens, contradiction detection). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming per-protocol tools it does not replace.

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?

Explicitly recommends using as 'the FIRST call when analyzing a wallet' and clarifies it does not replace per-protocol tools, suggesting when to use alternatives like spectra_get_portfolio.

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