open_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses it's a real trade (WRITE) and a prerequisite, but doesn't detail side effects or state changes beyond the obvious. Adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Two sentences pack essential information, but the dense list could benefit from structured formatting for easier parsing. Still efficient overall.

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 the complexity (16 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description lacks depth. It doesn't explain return values or cover all parameter details, making it incomplete for confident usage.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains executionType, leverage, usdValue, slippage, and asset arrays, but many parameters (triggerValue, triggerType, direction, twapDuration, etc.) are left unexplained, leaving gaps for a 16-parameter tool.

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 the action ('Open a new pair position on Pear Protocol') and lists key parameters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like close_position and adjust_position.

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?

It mentions 'WRITE: executes a real trade' and requires 'PEAR_TRADE_ENABLED=true', providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly exclude other tools or describe when not to use it.

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