get_positions

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: zero or false fields (blocked, exchangeBlocked) are omitted, balance is a string integer truncated to whole units, and positionUid is identified as the key shared with portfolio and operations. These are exactly the quirks an agent needs to parse results correctly.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the sibling distinction, then the result-format caveats. Every sentence earns its place, though the balance/positionUid explanation is dense and could be tighter.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return shape, and it does: omitted fields, string-typed truncated balances, and the positionUid key. An agent can call and interpret this tool correctly from the description alone.

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 0%, so the description carries the load, and it does say where account_id comes from (get_accounts). That is useful provenance, though it stops short of any format or validation detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get all positions in an account') and enumerates the covered asset classes (securities, futures, options, cash balances). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_portfolio, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (get_portfolio) and the condition that distinguishes it: raw balances without price calculations. It also points to get_portfolio for exact fractional quantities. It does not spell out a full when-not-to-use rule, but the context is clear.

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