Lends Get Position

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the useful context that the output contains derived values, not just raw stored collateral. Otherwise it doesn't disclose edge cases, error behavior, or output structure.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the key purpose is front-loaded. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and result.

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 read-only getter with no output schema, the high-level output semantics are named, but the optional timestamp and the meaning of 'capacity' are left unexplained. It is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only echoes 'borrower' and 'collateral' at a high level. It doesn't explain the distinction between owner and collateral parameters, nor the optional timestamp's meaning, so it fails to compensate for the empty schema descriptions.

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') and names a distinct resource ('a borrower's collateral position') plus the derived outputs (debt, health, capacity). It is clear on its own, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling math tools like lends_math_health_factor or lends_math_liquidation_price.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The description says only what the tool reads; with many math and getter siblings, an agent receives no help choosing this over lends_get_markets or lends_math_health_factor.

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