get_all_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It indicates a read-only retrieval ('获取') and discloses the optional filter behavior. It does not explain what happens when exchange is omitted, whether all exchanges are included by default, or any pagination/error behavior, but the read-only nature is clear.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose comes first, followed by the optional parameter in a clean Args block. There is no wasted text or redundant schema repetition.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It gives the core purpose and parameter guidance; the only missing explicit detail is whether omitting exchange returns positions across all exchanges, though that is strongly implied by '所有持仓' and '可选'.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well for the single parameter. It explains that exchange is optional, what it does (filter by exchange), and provides concrete examples ('binance / bybit / okx'), adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states a clear verb ('获取' / get), a specific resource ('所有持仓' / all positions), and an optional filtering dimension ('可按交易所过滤'). The 'all' scope differentiates it from the sibling get_position, which implies a single-position lookup.

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: call this tool to retrieve all positions, optionally filtered by exchange. It does not explicitly contrast with get_position or state when to prefer one over the other, so the guidance is present but implicit.

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