get_position

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention permissions, side effects, or rate limits. The verb 'Get' implies no mutation, but that is not made explicit.

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 composed of two concise sentences that front-load the operation and then summarize the return payload. Every word contributes meaning, with no repetition or filler.

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 tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the core purpose and key return categories. However, because there is no output schema, the agent must infer the exact structure of the 'portfolio summary', and the optional symbol filter is only discoverable by inspecting the schema.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as how the symbol filter interacts with 'across all markets'.

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 'Get' and a clear resource: 'a user's DorkFi lending positions across all markets'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning per-pool health factors and a portfolio summary, making it clear this is the portfolio-level view rather than get_health_factor or get_markets.

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 this tool is for retrieving a user's full lending portfolio, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose it over alternatives like get_health_factor for single-pool health or get_markets for market-level data. There is no exclusion or alternative mentioned, leaving usage somewhat to inference.

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