topvisor_check_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly labels the tool as 'ASYNC,' explains that it returns projectIds immediately while data collection runs in the background (minutes to hours), and describes how to monitor progress and retrieve results. It also notes parameter interactions (e.g., keyword_id overrides other parameters). This fully discloses behavioral traits.

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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with the key fact 'ASYNC: Submit a position check job...', and efficiently structures the workflow: action, immediate result, monitoring, results retrieval, and cost preview. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the expected behavior: it explains the async nature, the return of projectIds, the background processing timeline, and provides links to monitor (topvisor_list_projects) and retrieve results (topvisor_get_history). It also mentions cost preview (topvisor_check_price). For a submission tool, this is complete and self-contained.

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 57%, and the description adds contextual value for the `keyword_id` parameter (explains overriding behavior). However, the description does not elaborate on the `folders_ids`, `folders_ids_depth`, or `groups_ids` parameters, leaving their semantics partially unclear. The description compensates somewhat by describing the overall async workflow, but not fully for all parameters.

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 purpose: 'Submit a position check job to the Topvisor queue.' It specifies the async nature, immediate return of projectIds, and distinguishes from siblings by linking to monitoring and results tools. The verb 'submit' and resource 'position check job' are specific, and the description helps differentiate from tools like topvisor_check_price and topvisor_get_history.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (to submit a position check) and what to do next: poll topvisor_list_projects for status, read results via topvisor_get_history, and preview cost via topvisor_check_price. It effectively outlines the workflow and alternatives, aiding correct tool selection.

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