Adrena Get Positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the basic function, such as authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. It merely restates the purpose without enriching 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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence effectively communicates the core purpose, while the second provides optional integration context. Although the second sentence may be extraneous for basic usage, the overall structure is efficient.

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 (one parameter, read-only, with annotations and output schema), the description sufficiently covers the essential aspects. Missing details like error handling are not critical enough to lower the score significantly.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description ('Solana public key (base58)'). The description does not add further semantic value, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get all open positions on Adrena Protocol,' specifying the verb (get) and resource (open positions on Adrena Protocol). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like adrena_openPosition and adrena_closePosition, which handle position creation and closure.

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 includes SAP MCP integration context but fails to provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.

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