fluid_get_user_lending_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. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any edge cases (e.g., behavior if user has no position), required permissions, or side effects. Since it is a getter, the risk is low, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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, front-loaded sentence that starts with the main action and resource, then lists what it returns. There is zero waste, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and return fields, which is adequate. However, it lacks context about edge cases, error conditions, or how to set up the RPC URL. Given the moderate complexity and absence of annotations, it is barely sufficient but leaves some gaps.

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 75% (three of four parameters have descriptions). The description does not add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema. It mentions return values (fToken shares, underlying asset value, etc.) but does not explain 'rpc_url', which is left undocumented in the schema. Thus, the description provides little additional value for parameter understanding.

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 ('Get') and identifies the resource ('a user's position in a specific fToken lending pool'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'fluid_get_user_all_positions' by emphasizing 'specific'. The return values are also listed, further clarifying the tool's purpose.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for all positions one should use 'fluid_get_user_all_positions', nor does it explain prerequisites. The context is only implied by the name and required parameters, not stated.

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