fetch_all_open_positions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this, such as the inclusion of live prices, unrealised gains, and the pieQuantity field for positions in pies. No contradictions exist.

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 concise at seven sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, field details, pie note, cross-references, and return type. No extraneous words; well-structured and front-loaded.

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 output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description adequately covers return values by listing key fields and stating it returns a list of Position objects. For a zero-parameter tool, this is complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline for no parameters is 4. No additional information is needed.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the exact resource 'every open position in the portfolio'. It lists the fields returned (live prices, quantities, cost basis, unrealised gains), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_specific_position_by_ticker and fetch_portfolio_summary.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to get a complete view of current holdings' and directly names alternatives with 'See also: search_specific_position_by_ticker for a single position lookup, or fetch_portfolio_summary for an aggregated portfolio view.'

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