get_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-only operation ('Get') and lists the specific return fields, providing useful transparency about the response. It does not mention error handling, rate limits, or authorization, but for a simple query this is sufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and lists key fields without unnecessary words. No redundancy or padding.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete enough: it states what is returned and the granularity ('for each position'). It does not specify the response structure (e.g., array), but this is implied. It adequately covers the main use case.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter 'address' with a clear description. The tool description only repeats 'for a wallet address' without adding extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it does not compensate beyond the baseline.

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's function: 'Get all open positions for a wallet address' and specifies the data returned (liquidation price, unrealized PnL, etc.). This is specific and differentiates from sibling tools focused on stakes, orders, and markets.

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 when open positions are needed, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over siblings or list exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced, so guidance is minimal.

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