fluid_get_vault_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns decoded supply, borrow, liquidation status, vault config, and rates, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, does not mention error behavior (e.g., if NFT ID is invalid), or note the optional rpc_url behavior. The implicit 'Get' verb suggests a safe read, but the description lacks explicit safety or side-effect transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. It avoids fluff and is appropriately sized for a get-by-ID tool. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description lists key return elements (supply, borrow, liquidation, vault config, rates), which gives a good overview. However, it lacks details on result structure, potential edge cases (e.g., non-existent NFT), or the role of the optional rpc_url parameter. Given the tool's complexity, the description is adequate but leaves notable 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?

The schema description coverage is 67%, with chain and nft_id described. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema for these parameters; it merely repeats the NFT ID concept. The optional rpc_url parameter has no description in the schema and is not mentioned in the description, so the description fails to compensate for that gap. Overall, the description provides no additional parameter 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's function: 'Get a specific vault position by its NFT ID' with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the NFT representation and lists return contents, which adds context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'fluid_get_vault_by_nft', which likely performs a similar function.

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. The description does not mention criteria, prerequisites, or exclusion cases. The existence of overlapping siblings (e.g., fluid_get_vault_by_nft) makes this gap more significant, as the agent cannot determine which tool to select for a given scenario.

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