cap_trade_positions_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only describes what the tool returns but fails to disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication requirements, or any constraints. More detail is needed for safe invocation.

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 that is concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every word adds 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?

Despite no parameters and an available output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and output content. It could mention that the result is a list, but the phrasing 'List all open positions' implies that. The output schema likely details the structure.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter information. Per guidelines, zero parameters warrant a baseline of 4.

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 lists all open positions and specifies the returned fields (P&L, direction, size, attached orders). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cap_trade_positions_get by using 'all open positions'.

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 listing open positions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like cap_trade_positions_get. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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