get_positions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that negative quantity means short, and notes market value is included 'when the broker prices it', acknowledging variability. However, it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any error conditions, or pagination, which would be expected without annotation support.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds relevant field details and the parameter. Every part earns its place; there is no waste or redundancy.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, parameter, and key output semantics. It does not explicitly state that the result is a list or how errors are handled, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema already covers the single optional 'broker' parameter with a description and example. The description only reinforces its optionality ('Optionally filter by broker id') without adding extra meaning, so it remains at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves open positions across all accounts, specifying the fields returned (symbol, quantity, market value) and the meaning of negative quantity. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_trades (trade history) and get_stats (statistics) without ambiguity.

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 use it (for positions) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or situations where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer based on the action and resource.

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