gdex_positions

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the description's job is to add non-obvious behavior — and it does: it discloses that each section reports ok or unavailable and that 'unavailable means unknown, not empty', which prevents the agent from misreading partial failures as zero balances. It still omits auth requirements, rate limits, and freshness/caching semantics.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource contents and ending with the one caveat that changes how results must be interpreted. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well by enumerating sections and their status semantics, which is the most important thing for an open-world read tool. It falls short only on the required accountRef argument and on any mention of auth or scope of access.

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 0% for the single required parameter accountRef, and the description never mentions it. The agent cannot tell from either source whether accountRef is a wallet address, an internal account id, or a session-scoped handle — a gap that matters for a tool that reads another account's holdings.

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 names the resource precisely and enumerates its parts: unified USDC + gas balances per chain, Hyperliquid positions across every DEX, open orders, and unfinished operations. The aggregation scope ('unified', 'per chain', 'on every DEX') implicitly distinguishes it from narrower siblings such as get_perp_positions, usdc_get_balances, or get_hl_open_orders. An agent can tell what this returns without opening any schema.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternative is named, despite many overlapping siblings (get_balances, get_portfolio, get_account_state, get_perp_positions). The agent is left to infer that this is the aggregate snapshot. The second sentence describes output interpretation, not usage selection.

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