all_option_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the tool returns 'all option positions ever held', omitting details like whether closed positions are included, data range, or performance implications.

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?

Description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating the operation type (e.g., 'Retrieves...').

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 has an output schema, return values don't need elaboration. However, the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., scope of 'ever held', historical range). It is minimally complete but could be enhanced.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as schema coverage is 100% and no parameter documentation is required.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves 'all option positions ever held', using a specific verb ('gets') and resource ('all option positions ever held'). This effectively distinguishes it from related tools like 'open_option_positions' (current) and 'aggregate_option_positions' (summary).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling tools with similar names (e.g., 'open_option_positions', 'option_positions'), explicit usage context is lacking.

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