Get a specific account position by orderbook_id, avoiding a full portfolio dump.
Read one account position by orderbook_id without dumping the full portfolio.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | ||
| session_id | No | Legacy alias for tenant_session_id (non-paper tools only). | |
| orderbook_id | Yes | ||
| tenant_session_id | No | Optional tenant session scope id for multi-session TUI/MCP routing. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.42Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'Read' and the scoping statement about not dumping the full portfolio convey that this is a safe, targeted read operation. But it does not disclose auth/session requirements, behavior when the position is not found, or any pagination/response details.
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?
A single 12-word sentence with zero filler. The core action, resource, and distinguishing constraint are all front-loaded and immediately actionable.
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 simple single-position lookup, the description covers the essential 'what' and 'which'. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return-format details, authentication/session prerequisites, and error behavior, which an agent might need to fully trust the invocation.
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 only 50%, and the two required parameters (account_id, orderbook_id) lack schema descriptions. The description clarifies that account_id identifies the account and orderbook_id identifies which position to read. The session-related parameters already have schema descriptions, so the description reasonably compensates for the gaps.
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 a specific verb ('Read'), names the exact resource ('one account position'), and identifies the lookup key ('orderbook_id'). The contrast with 'dumping the full portfolio' clearly distinguishes it from broader position tools like avanza_portfolio.
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 'without dumping the full portfolio' implies this tool is for targeted single-position lookups rather than full portfolio reads. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or states when not to use it, leaving some selection logic to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.