Open positions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully explains that negative quantity means short, market value is in the account currency when the broker prices it, and average entry price is provided where reported. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor does it mention pagination or data freshness.

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 front-loaded sentence that covers the core purpose, returned fields, key caveats, and the optional filter without any filler. Every clause adds information an agent needs.

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 explains the scope, field semantics, and data caveats. The main omission is an explicit statement that the result is a list/array and what happens when there are no open positions or no connected accounts.

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 only parameter, broker, has 100% schema description coverage and includes concrete examples. The tool description simply restates that filtering is optional, adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (open positions) and scope (all connected accounts), and enumerates the returned fields. It lacks an explicit imperative verb such as 'list' or 'get' and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like broker_trades, so it is clear but not fully distinguished.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as broker_trades, broker_accounts, or broker_stats. The only usage hint is the optional broker filter, which is parameter-level guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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