get_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns current data for open positions with non-zero size, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether the data is real-time or cached, leaving gaps for a tool that likely queries live trading data.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise list of returned fields. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving open positions), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is fairly complete. It specifies the scope ('non-zero size') and lists returned fields, but could benefit from more behavioral context like data freshness or error handling, though the output schema may cover return values.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'symbol' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, but since there is only one optional parameter and schema coverage is high, the baseline is strong. The description's mention of filtering aligns with the schema but doesn't enhance it significantly.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('current open positions') with specific scope ('non-zero size'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_account_summary or get_balance. It explicitly lists the data fields returned per position, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 implies usage for retrieving open trading positions, with context from the parameter description suggesting filtering by symbol. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_account_summary or get_open_orders, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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