open_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, but no further detail is given about return format, authentication, or potential side effects (though likely none). It meets the minimum but lacks rich context.

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 sentence with ten words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description sufficiently communicates its core function. It could optionally clarify what 'open' means (e.g., pending vs. active), but the current text is adequate for typical usage.

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 description does not need to explain any. Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information but none is required.

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 'List trades currently open on the account' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('trades currently open'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like trade_history (historical trades) and get_balance (balance). It is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 implies usage for viewing current open positions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like trade_history. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, so usage context is only inferred.

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