get_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the data fields returned (P&L, entry/current price, etc.) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first lists the core functionality and data fields, and the second explains the optional filtering. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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 tool with good annotations and a simple parameter schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what data is returned and the filtering option. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return format (e.g., structure of the list), slightly reducing completeness.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents the single optional parameter (symbol). The description adds marginal value by mentioning the filtering option but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema states.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('open positions'), and enumerates the data fields returned (ticket, symbol, side, volume, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_history (historical data) and get_orders (pending orders) by focusing on current open positions.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('List open positions') and includes an optional filtering capability ('Optionally filter by symbol'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives (e.g., get_history for closed positions), which prevents a perfect score.

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