get_position_mode

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 states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't confirm if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or describes the output format. While the presence of an output schema helps, the description itself lacks critical behavioral context for a tool in a financial trading environment.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and result, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema provided), the description is minimally adequate. However, in a trading context with siblings like 'get_positions', more context on usage or differentiation would be beneficial. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but it could better address the tool's role within the server.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameter information is required, and the description doesn't introduce confusion about inputs.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current position mode'), and identifies the two possible modes (Hedge Mode or One-way Mode). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get_positions', which might also provide position-related information, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_positions' and 'get_account_summary' that might overlap in context, there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other position or account-related queries.

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