get_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and parameter; it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The verb '获取' (get) implies read-only, but it is not explicit.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single purpose sentence and an args block. It front-loads the main action and is free of redundant or filler text, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the essential action and parameter. However, it lacks any usage guidance or explicit behavioral notes, which might be expected even for a simple tool. The absence of such context means an agent may not know when to choose this over get_all_positions, though the tool's simplicity mitigates the impact.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type by explaining that symbol is a trading pair and providing an example (BTCUSDT-PERP.BINANCE). This clarifies the expected format and domain, which the schema itself does not provide. It does not exhaustively describe all possible values, but it is helpful.

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 explicitly states it retrieves position information for a specified trading pair, using a clear verb ('获取'/'get') and resource. It is distinct from siblings like get_all_positions (which likely returns all positions) and get_balance (which returns balances), so an agent can easily differentiate it.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_all_positions or get_balance. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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