get_fno_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is read-only, whether it touches all brokers by default, or any other behaviors. The minimal text provides little beyond the verb.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It places the verb at the start and is appropriately short for such a simple tool.

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 being a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is too scant. It fails to explain the broker parameter, differentiate from the broader get_positions tool, or clarify what the agent should expect in the response. More context is needed for reliable tool selection.

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 one parameter 'broker' with an enum but no description (0% schema description coverage). The description does not mention the broker parameter at all, leaving the agent without any explanation of how to filter results or what the default behavior is.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource 'F&O positions' from 'connected brokers', making the tool's purpose clear. It is more specific than siblings like get_positions, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish between them.

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 usage is implied by the tool name and description: use this when you need F&O (derivatives) positions. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_positions, or any conditions or exclusions.

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