Open positions

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional context is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those hints: it explains that view='individual' lists every position and view='net' nets positions per instrument, and it enumerates the response fields.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the resource and key fields, the second explains the view parameter's behavior. Every word earns its place, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple read tool with rich annotations and fully documented parameters, the description covers the return fields and view semantics. It does not mention pagination or empty results, but those are not critical for a straightforward positions listing and the output schema is absent, so the description carries the return-value burden adequately.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by explaining the effect of the view enum values ('lists every position' vs 'nets positions per instrument'), which is not fully captured in the schema's one-word descriptions.

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 resource (open positions) and the returned fields (open price, current price, exposure, P/L), making the tool's function obvious. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, but the resource is distinct enough from get_balances, get_orders, and get_transactions that an agent can tell them apart.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_orders or get_balances. It only describes what the tool returns and the view parameter behavior, leaving the selection decision entirely to inference from the resource name.

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