get_broker_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 adds useful context: the operation is at the 'paper broker' and includes unrealised P&L, indicating a read-only snapshot. However, it does not disclose potential return format, ordering, pagination, or data freshness, which would be valuable for a read operation.

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, front-loaded with 'Open positions', and contains no filler or redundant terms. It is concise and structurally ideal.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned. It includes useful context about the paper broker and unrealised P&L. However, it does not mention potential limitations like the current date range or position status, which could be relevant in some contexts.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed and adds no conflicting information. No additional parameter semantics are 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 'Open positions at the paper broker, with unrealised P&L' uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('broker positions'), and adds scope ('paper broker') and content details ('unrealised P&L'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_broker_orders.

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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description implies retrieval of open positions, which is a clear context, but it does not name alternatives such as get_broker_orders or close_broker_position. This is adequate but could be improved with explicit exclusions.

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