List all open positions with quantity, average cost, current price, market value, and profit/loss for BIST stocks, US stocks, TEFAS funds, and US options.
Tüm açık pozisyonları (BIST hisseleri, ABD hisseleri, TEFAS fonları, ABD opsiyonları) adet, ortalama maliyet, güncel fiyat, piyasa değeri ve kâr/zararla listeler.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scope (all open positions across four asset classes) and the exact fields returned, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose whether positions are sorted, whether closed positions are excluded, or any pagination/limit behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose (listing open positions) and enumerates the asset classes and return fields without any waste. Every element earns its place.
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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the asset classes and return fields. The only minor gap is not mentioning whether the list is sorted or if there are any limits, but these are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 tool has 0 parameters, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates by clearly stating what the tool returns (quantity, average cost, current price, market value, profit/loss) and the asset classes covered. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that baseline by providing clear output semantics.
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 lists all open positions across four asset classes (BIST stocks, US stocks, TEFAS funds, US options) and specifies the exact fields returned (quantity, average cost, current price, market value, profit/loss). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get_portfolio or get_transactions.
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 this is the tool for open positions, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_portfolio or get_transactions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but there's no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.