mb_get_positions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature (listing positions) and the fields returned (average entry price, quantity, side). However, it does not mention authentication requirements, pagination, or any other behavioral nuances. This is adequate but not rich, matching a 3.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes value.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields and use case. It does not explain all possible behaviors (e.g., filtering behavior, result limits), but it is sufficiently complete for straightforward portfolio analysis. The schema handles parameter details, leaving the description to provide context and output expectations.

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 100%, with both parameters (symbols, accountId) already described. The tool description adds no extra meaning about these parameters; it only mentions output fields. Thus, baseline 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 tool's function: 'List open positions with average entry price, quantity and side.' The verb 'List' and specific resources (open positions, entry price, quantity, side) make it distinct from sibling tools like balances or trades.

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 provides context for when to use the tool ('Usful for portfolio analysis and P&L tracking') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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