get_open_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states 'Requires PEAR_API_KEY' as a prerequisite, which is helpful, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe. For a read operation, more explicit safety cues would improve transparency.

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 two sentences: one for purpose and output fields, one for the requirement. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, key return fields, and a hard requirement (API key). It does not cover potential errors, pagination, or limits, but for a simple list tool 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. It adds value by listing the output fields (position ID, entry ratio, etc.), which is relevant for understanding the tool's return.

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 states 'List the authenticated user's currently open Pear Protocol pair positions' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_open_orders and close_position by focusing on pair positions. Includes details on returned fields (position ID, entry ratio, etc.).

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 mentions the requirement of PEAR_API_KEY but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_open_orders or get_portfolio. No when-not or exclusion criteria stated.

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