Get positions and open orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It usefully clarifies that wallet is required and there is no session, implying a stateless read operation. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only (important given transaction-building siblings), nor describe side effects, limits, or output format.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the first states the core purpose, the second clarifies the wallet parameter. Efficient and front-loaded, though slightly more detail could be added 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits the meaning of the venue parameter, does not explicitly state read-only behavior (important given siblings like build_order_tx), and gives no indication of the return structure. An agent would need to infer or probe to understand full behavior.

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 50%: wallet is described as '0x-prefixed EOA', but venue only has an enum and default with no semantic explanation. The description adds nothing about venue meanings or how it affects results, failing to compensate for the undocumented 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (positions and resting orders) scoped to a wallet, sourced from public subgraphs. This distinguishes it from market-wide siblings like get_orderbook, though it doesn't explicitly name any alternative.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred over siblings like get_margin_status or get_orderbook, nor any exclusions.

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