alpha_get_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool fetches data (implied read-only) and uses the active MCP wallet as a fallback, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite itemsPerPage parameter), error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential usage guidance without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (fetching positions across markets with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'YES/NO token positions' entail, how pagination works with itemsPerPage, the structure of returned data, or potential errors, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 the schema already documents all parameters (walletAddress, network, itemsPerPage) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds marginal value by clarifying walletAddress behavior (uses active MCP wallet if omitted), but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 the verb ('Fetch') and resource ('YES/NO token positions for a wallet across all Alpha Arcade markets'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like alpha_get_open_orders (which fetches orders, not positions) and alpha_get_market (which fetches market data, not wallet positions), providing clear differentiation.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: to fetch token positions for a wallet across Alpha Arcade markets, with guidance on walletAddress parameter usage (uses active MCP wallet if omitted). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., alpha_get_open_orders for orders instead of positions), which prevents a score of 5.

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