get_whale_positions

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

With no annotations present, the description fully bears the responsibility of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the tool is read-only, how results are ordered, what data is returned, or any potential limitations (e.g., real-time vs cached data).

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should compensate by outlining the return format (e.g., list of traders, positions, markets). It does not, leaving the agent uninformed about the response structure. Additionally, it omits ordering details.

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 has 100% description coverage for its two parameters ('limit' and 'min_position'), so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. The description hints at sorting by position size but does not elaborate on parameter impact.

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 specifies the tool's action ('Find'), resource ('largest position holders'), and scope ('across all Predict.fun markets'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_leaderboard' and 'get_top_markets' which serve different purposes.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, trade-offs, or use cases that differentiate it from similar tools such as 'get_leaderboard'.

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