get_portfolio_positions

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any potential side effects, latency, or whether data is real-time or cached. For a read operation, the description carries full burden and falls short.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action. Every word adds value; no wasted or redundant phrasing.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more detail about the return format (e.g., array of objects), whether positions are current or historical, and any limitations. It is insufficient for an agent to correctly interpret the output.

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?

With no parameters (100% schema coverage), the description does not need to add parameter information. The baseline of 3 applies, and the description adds some value by explaining what the output contains, though this is more about return semantics than parameters.

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 specific verb 'Get' and resource 'portfolio positions', and lists concrete examples of returned data (ticker, quantity, cost, account details). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_portfolio_pnl (profit/loss) and get_position_details (more detailed).

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 this tool is for obtaining basic position overviews, but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of siblings or provide any exclusions. The usage context is implied by the word 'basic' and the sibling tool names.

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