getUserYearnPositions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states it 'gets information' and uses the private key from environment, but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, has no side effects, or requires specific permissions. For a read operation, this omission is significant. A 2 is appropriate as it adds some context but fails to assure agents of safety.

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 of 16 words, front-loading the purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no filler. It is optimally concise for the information conveyed.

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 no output schema, the description could mention what kind of information is returned (e.g., position details, balances). It is complete enough for a simple tool with one parameter, but the lack of return value context leaves agents uncertain about what to expect. Thus, a 3—adequate but with room for improvement.

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?

Only one parameter exists, and the schema description (100% coverage) already explains it well: 'Optional: Wallet address to check Yearn positions for (defaults to address from private key in env)'. The description reinforces this by mentioning the environment address, adding no contradiction. Parameter semantics are fully addressed.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about your Yearn vault positions'. It specifies the resource (Yearn vault positions) and the verb (Get). It also distinguishes from siblings like depositToYearnVault, withdrawFromYearnVault, and getYearnVaultInfo by focusing on positions rather than actions or vault metadata.

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 implies usage context by noting the address default from environment. It doesn't explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, but the sibling tools are action-oriented (bridge, deposit, withdraw, swap) vs this read-only query, so the usage is implicitly clear. Lack of explicit when-not or alternatives prevents a 5.

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