stock_query_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the force_query parameter's cache behavior and mentions returns include P&L data, which adds useful context. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if it requires a connection, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 concise and well-structured with an Args/Returns format. It avoids fluff and presents all necessary information in a scannable way, though it could be slightly more polished by noting defaults inline.

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 description includes the key return value (positions with P&L data) and parameter semantics, and the output schema exists for detailed return structure. However, it omits any mention of required prerequisites like a valid connection or login status, which are relevant given the sibling tools for connect/login. This is a minor gap.

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?

Given the schema has 0% description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning. It provides the format and default for trade_date, the behavior of force_query (cache vs server refresh), and identifies account_id. While account_id is somewhat redundant, the other parameters gain clarity beyond the schema's basic definitions.

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 'Query stock positions' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stock_query_order and stock_query_match by focusing on positions. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool name.

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. While the name implies it is for querying positions, there is no explicit context about prerequisites (e.g., being logged in) or exclusions compared to other query tools. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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