Adrena Get Positions

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds no behavioral details beyond those annotations, such as rate limits, authentication, or data freshness. With good annotations, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 short (two sentences). The first sentence is concise and front-loaded with purpose. The second sentence about SAP MCP context is somewhat unrelated to the core function, mildly reducing conciseness but not significantly.

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 low complexity (one parameter, full schema coverage, output schema exists, clear annotations), the minimal description is nearly sufficient. It covers the essential 'open positions' scope but could mention that only open positions are returned or confirm it queries a specific wallet's positions.

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 100% and the 'wallet' parameter has a clear description in the schema. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('open positions on Adrena Protocol'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like adrena_closePosition which imply mutation, and from other protocol position tools like drift_getPositions.

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 extraneous SAP MCP context but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like drift_getPositions or other position-listing tools. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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