get_positions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the parenthetical '(intraday + carry-forward F&O etc)' adds useful context about what position types are returned. However, it omits any mention of permissions, rate limits, or response format.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The only minor weakness is the vague trailing 'etc', which slightly reduces precision.

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 zero-parameter read tool this is adequate, but it is not fully complete: it lacks any indication of return shape, and it does not distinguish the tool from closely related siblings like get_holdings or get_margins. Without an output schema, a little more detail would help.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it appropriately stays focused on the data retrieved.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get ... positions') and clarifies the scope as current-day plus net/carry-forward positions, which helps distinguish it from related tools like get_holdings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_holdings or convert_position, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'Get current day's and net trading positions', suggesting the tool should be used when position data is needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_holdings, get_margins, or convert_position, and no exclusions are stated.

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