Adrena Open Position

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the SAP integration context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as fees, liquidation risks, or chain interactions. It is adequate but not enhanced beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential integration context. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description is simple but sufficient given the thorough schema and annotations. It does not cover prerequisites or protocol details, but the required parameters implicitly cover wallet and market info.

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 all 8 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Open'), the resource ('leveraged perpetual position'), and the protocol ('Adrena Protocol'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like adrena_closePosition and adrena_addCollateral.

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 integration context, indicating when to use SAP registration tools, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus other perpetual position tools (e.g., drift_openPerpPosition). No direct when/when-not guidance is given.

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