get_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'connected brokers' but does not explain what happens if none are connected, the meaning of the default 'all', or any limitations. The non-mutating nature is implied by 'Fetch' but never explicitly stated.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no wasted content, and it is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not clarify whether 'positions' includes F&O (given the get_fno_positions sibling), how the default 'all' behaves, or what the response structure looks like. These are notable omissions for an agent selecting the tool.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'broker' parameter beyond what the schema's enum and default already show. The schema is self-explanatory for a simple parameter, but the description adds no value in clarifying how the broker selection affects the returned data.

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 states a clear action ('Fetch'), resource ('open positions'), and scope ('from connected brokers'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_holdings and get_orders, but does not explicitly contrast with get_fno_positions, leaving ambiguity about whether positions include derivatives.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_fno_positions or get_holdings. It also does not mention prerequisites, such as ensuring brokers are connected, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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