bybit_positions

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to indicate whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The absence of such details leaves the agent unaware of important constraints.

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 sentence, which is concise but at the expense of necessary details. While it fronts the purpose, it is too brief to serve as a complete guide. It earns its one sentence but needs expansion.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It omits pagination behavior, return format, and any usage context, making it insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameters. It does not—none of the four parameters (limit, symbol, category, settleCoin) are described. The agent gets no additional meaning beyond parameter names and types.

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 'Get open positions from Bybit V5' clearly states the verb (Get), resource (open positions), and source (Bybit V5). It is distinct from sibling tools like bybit_closed_pnl or bybit_wallet_balance, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bybit_closed_pnl or bybit_trade_stats. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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