Get vfat positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about the return content ('provider metrics and underlying position fields') and scope ('all current'), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and resource. It includes enough detail without wasting words, making it easy to parse and understand.

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?

The tool has a simple input (one parameter with full schema coverage), strong annotations, and no output schema. The description provides a clear scope and hints at the data returned, which is sufficient for a list-type read operation. It could be more explicit about the return format, but given the simplicity, it is adequately complete.

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 fully describes the single parameter with a pattern and a clear description ('EVM admin/owner address used by vfat'). The description text repeats the notion of an EVM admin address but does not add new parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Returns' and the specific resource 'all current vfat/Sickle positions reported for an EVM admin address'. It also elaborates on the content ('including provider metrics and underlying position fields'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vfat_position (singular) and portfolio summary.

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 implicitly communicates its use case by emphasizing 'all current positions', which differentiates it from more focused tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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