legion_my_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it states the wallet must be unlocked and that nothing is signed, establishing safety and a prerequisite. It omits error behavior and failure modes for an unregistered or locked wallet, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Return contents are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the safety note and a cross-reference tip. Three short sentences with little waste, though the earning_opportunities tip is tangential to invoking this tool.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and the signature/auth posture. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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% and the 'era' parameter already carries a solid description about deployments and id collisions, so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about 'era', which is acceptable at baseline but not additive.

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?

Enumerates exactly what is returned (weight, share, weight lock, sBTC balance, propose preconditions) for the caller's own legion position, which is a concrete resource with a clear scope. It does not explicitly contrast itself with legion_status, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 'so a blocked propose names the gate to wait on' clause tells the agent this is the pre-flight check before legion_propose_story, which is real usage guidance. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or naming an alternative read tool.

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