get_position

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 key behavioral traits: it reads the chain directly, the P/L is an estimate based on this server's log of prepared buys, and cost-basis assumes prepared buys were executed. It doesn't specify authentication requirements or rate limits, which would be useful for a wallet-reading tool.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the primary purpose and source of truth, the second explains the P/L estimate and its basis, the third clarifies the cost-basis assumption. Front-loaded with the main function and no wasted words.

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 read-only position tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns (holdings, estimated P/L), the data source (on-chain), and the caveat about P/L estimation. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret the results, though more detail on return format could help.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage (the mint parameter is fully documented), the baseline is 3. The description contextually reinforces that the tool reports on all holdings otherwise, but doesn't add new semantic information beyond the schema. The description does not contradict the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate, but the description's explanation of the mint filter's role in the context of reporting adds marginal value, so 4 is justified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read the configured wallet's current on-chain holdings'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like review_positions by explicitly noting it doesn't rely on the server's trade history, and the scope is further clarified with filtering by mint. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use it—when you need a source of truth for on-chain holdings directly from the chain, and when you need an estimated unrealized P/L. It implies usage but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools like review_positions. Still, the source-of-truth framing is strong guidance.

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