getPosition

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only operation via 'Returns' and details the returned data, but it does not explicitly state that no state is modified, what happens for an invalid address, or whether any authentication is needed. This is adequate for a simple getter but not fully transparent.

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 states the core action and then lists the specific return components. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name is present.

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 one-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description covers the return essentials (collateral, debt, available borrows, health factor, per-asset breakdown). It lacks minor context such as error behavior or whether the address must already be registered, but nothing critical is missing for invoking it.

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 100% and the single 'address' parameter is already well documented as an Ethereum wallet address. The description adds only the protocol-specific context that the address is a wallet whose position is returned, which is marginal beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Returns'), a resource ('a wallet's current lending/borrowing position on Kaskad Protocol'), and enumerates the key output fields. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling getters such as getHistory or checkHealthFactor, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 when to call it (when a current position snapshot is needed) but provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives among the many sibling tools. There is no exclusion, such as 'for historical activity use getHistory'.

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