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. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as return format, potential errors, or lack of side effects. It is minimal but not misleading.

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 two short sentences in English and Korean, front-loaded with the purpose. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what the tool returns (open positions) and how to filter, which is adequate for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already describing 'symbol' as 'Filter by symbol (optional).' The description restates this same information ('optionally filtered by symbol') without adding new meaning, so it relies on the schema for parameter depth.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get all open positions, optionally filtered by symbol.' This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like close_position and modify_position, which involve mutating positions rather than reading them.

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: whenever open positions are needed, with an optional symbol filter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the simple read-only nature, this is adequate.

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