get_open_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the auth requirement and the nature of the operation (read-only list of current positions). It does not mention error cases or rate limits, but for a simple parameterless read operation, this is adequate.

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 with an additional note on authentication. No fluff, front-loaded with the action and resource, efficient and clear.

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?

Given no output schema, the description lists key return fields. It covers what the tool does and its auth requirement. Could mention if pagination exists or max results, but for a simple list of open positions it is sufficiently complete.

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?

There are no parameters (schema has no properties), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly omits param info. Baseline score 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 Pear Protocol pair positions'), and includes the scope ('authenticated user') and returned fields. It distinguishes from siblings which cover different account or market data.

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 states the authentication requirement (PEAR_API_KEY) and implies usage when needing open positions. While it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, the sibling names are distinct enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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