Get Sandcastle positions for an owner

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

Annotations are rich: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that it queries both a subgraph and on-chain data, implying a two-step process and potential for network latency, but does not add details like rate limits or failure modes. It also clarifies the scope of data fetched, which is beyond annotations. Since annotations cover safety, this is solid.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists all the data returned. No redundant words, and it efficiently communicates what the tool does in one breath.

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 moderate complexity (two data sources, multiple metrics), the description covers the purpose and data retrieved. It does not explain the return structure, but no output schema exists, so some reliance on the description is warranted. However, for a read-only tool with annotations, this is adequate; missing details like whether it returns zero positions or handles invalid addresses are minor.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter owner has a description and pattern in the schema. The description adds that 'owner' is an EOA address, which is already in the schema pattern but adds semantic clarity. No further parameter elaboration needed since there is only one param and it is well-specified.

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 what the tool does: it discovers an owner's positions through the Sandcastle subgraph and reads multiple on-chain metrics. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like list_markets and get_market, which are about markets, not 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 implies usage by specifying the owner input, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives. However, given the specificity, an agent can infer it is for owner-specific position retrieval, but no exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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