avanza_paper_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a listing operation, but does not mention whether session/account selection is required, what data is returned, whether any state changes occur, or any error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the key optional qualifier about active-only filtering. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 4 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many related sibling tools, this description is too thin. It omits parameter semantics, expected return shape, prerequisite session/account selection behavior, and any guidance on how this relates to the broader paper-trading tool family.

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% and the description only adds meaning for 'active_only' via the phrase 'optional active-only filter'. The parameters account_id, session_id, and tenant_session_id remain unexplained in both schema and description, so the description does not adequately compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 identifies the action ('List'), the resource ('paper positions'), and the scope ('for a selected account/session'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like avanza_position or avanza_paper_trades because it specifically targets paper 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 phrase 'for a selected account/session' implies a prerequisite of account/session selection, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as avanza_position for live positions or avanza_paper_trades for trade history. Usage context is implied, not explicit.

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