Get User Options 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. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes to identifying the tool. It is not bloated, though it could afford a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 existence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks any mention of the position_type filter or the relationship to get_user_all_positions, but the output schema covers return structure. An agent would still need to infer some context to select it correctly.

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% at the parameter level, so the description must compensate. It only hints at base_coin via the asset examples 'BTC, ETH, SOL' but completely omits position_type. The nested schema does contain descriptions, but the tool description itself adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get user's options positions from Bybit'. It also names the asset scope (BTC, ETH, SOL), which distinguishes it from sibling get_user_all_positions that covers all position types. An agent can clearly tell this tool apart from the alternatives without opening the schema.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention get_user_all_positions for all positions or any exclusions such as 'use this for options only' or 'use analyze_portfolio_strategies for strategy analysis'. The intended usage is only implied by the name, not explicitly stated.

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