open_positions_api

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions retrieval but omits details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it returns all positions without pagination. The output schema exists but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the name.

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, direct Japanese sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description adequately identifies the resource but lacks details on response format or special behaviors. It is minimally complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 does not mention the single parameter 'symbol' at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate but fails to add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (minimal). This leaves the agent without guidance on how to use the parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the verb '取得' (get/retrieve) and resource '建玉一覧' (open positions list) for 'GMO Coin FX', making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like order and execution operations.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use information provided.

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