ig_list_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List open positions', which implies a read operation but does not disclose any behavior such as pagination, error conditions, or how the timezone parameter affects results. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description adds very little beyond the tool's name.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the action and object. There is no redundant information or filler, making it appropriately concise.

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?

Despite being a simple list operation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the timezone parameter, any filtering or ordering capabilities, or whether the results represent the full set of open positions. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description leaves out important context for a tool in a trading API.

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 has one required parameter, timezone, but provides no description (coverage 0%). The tool description does not explain what timezone is for or how it affects the results. The agent is left to guess the valid format or meaning, which is a significant gap especially since it is the only 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?

The description clearly specifies the action (List), the resource (open positions), and the scope (active account). This distinguishes it from siblings like ig_get_position (single position) and ig_list_working_orders (orders, not positions).

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that ig_get_position is for individual positions or that this lists all open positions, nor any conditions that affect usage. With several similar list/detail siblings, explicit differentiation would be expected.

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