ig_create_position

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention a critical risk—'This may execute a leveraged trade'—but omits other significant behaviors such as confirmation requirements, account impact, position sizing implications, or whether a deal reference is returned. This is minimal at best.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and a nested request object; the brevity appears to be a lack of substance rather than disciplined conciseness. It is not clearly 'appropriately sized' for the complexity.

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?

The tool has no annotations, low schema description coverage, a complex open-ended request object, and an output schema. The description fails to provide enough context for an agent to invoke the tool safely: no OTC definition, no confirmation flow, no trade execution details, and no relationship with other position/order tools. The only added context is the leveraged trade warning.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation of the parameters: request, timezone, confirm, or live_confirmation. The request object is open-ended (`additionalProperties: true`) and especially needs explanation, but the description is silent. This is a critical gap.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Create an OTC position.' It conveys the primary action without ambiguity. However, it does not distinguish this from related siblings like create_working_order beyond the 'OTC' qualifier, so it falls short of a 5.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ig_create_working_order, ig_update_position, or ig_close_position. There is no mention of prerequisites, supported scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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