qt_get_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation (likely implied by 'Get') or what the response looks like. It also does not mention if it provides real-time data, historical positions, or if it requires authentication. The description is too minimal to be transparent.

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 short sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It is not verbose, but its brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It earns a 4 for efficiency, but loses a point for lack of completeness.

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 it's a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is extremely sparse. It does not explain what positions are, how the accountId is used, or the nature of the response. An agent would have limited understanding of how to use this correctly, especially with no annotations to fall back on.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The description only mentions 'accountId' implicitly by saying 'for an account', but does not explain its format, requiredness, or how to obtain it. Since the schema has one parameter with no description, the tool description should at least clarify the parameter's role, which it barely does.

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 'Get current positions for an account' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'positions', with the scope being 'for an account'. It is somewhat generic but does identify a distinct purpose from siblings like qt_get_balances or qt_get_orders. However, it doesn't specify what a 'position' is in this context (e.g., holdings, open trades), which could cause ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need an account ID) or differentiate from qt_get_balances (which may also relate to account holdings). The sibling list suggests multiple financial data tools, but the description provides no context for choosing this one.

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