Get User All 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 only states what is returned and from where; it does not mention whether data is historical or live, whether authentication is required, any pagination/limits, error behaviors, or how the categories interact with the position_type parameter.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, the resource, and the scope categories directly. The title repetition is minor, but the description earns its place by adding the Bybit context and category list.

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 getter with a nested object parameter and an output schema present, this is minimally adequate: an agent can understand what data is returned and the basic categories. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation and behavioral context, which matters more because there are no annotations to fill those gaps.

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?

The description's parenthetical 'options, linear, inverse' reinforces the position_type values, but it adds no meaning beyond the input schema. The schema itself documents base_coin and position_type with defaults and value hints, so the prose does not need to repeat them, but it also does not clarify any edge cases like what 'all' means for each parameter.

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 and resource: 'Get all user positions from Bybit', and enumerates the product categories 'options, linear, inverse'. This makes the tool's scope reasonably clear and hints at how it differs from the sibling get_user_options_positions, but it does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling.

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 'all user positions' and the listed categories imply the intended use: retrieve positions across multiple product types. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over get_user_options_positions or any other alternative, nor any exclusions.

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