get_account_position

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read operation returning current positions across all accounts locked account scope. However, it does not disclose potential limitations such as pagination, data freshness, or whether it returns both realized and unrealized positions. This is adequate for a simple getter but not rich.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler. It conveys scope, resource, and recency in a single line.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent this is a read operation ('Get current') covering positions across all accountscars. It could optionally note the absence of filtering, but the word 'all accounts' already conveys that. The output schema covers return structure, so no return description is needed.

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?

There are zero parametersaine schema, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description, while brief, does clarify the scope of what is returned ('for all accounts'), which is the only semantic ambiguity that could exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a precise resource: current stock and options positions, scoped to all accounts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_account_balance (balances vs. positions) and get_account_history (historical activity vs. current positions), so an agent can tell them apart.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no explicit mention of trade-offs, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The context is implied by the verb and resource, but no direct usage guidance is provided.

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