pillar_direct_position

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states that no signing is needed and that the tool reads on-chain data, which tells the agent this is a safe read-only operation. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or response shape, but the key safety behavior is disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the core capability and token scope, followed by a short safety note and a relevant tip. Every sentence is short and purposeful, with no repetition or wasted text.

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 zero-parameter, read-only position viewer, the description gives enough information to call the tool: it names the balances and Zest position it returns and clarifies that signing is not required. The lack of an output schema is minor here, though the description could better distinguish the tool from sibling position tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema is empty and the description appropriately adds no parameter guidance, making the baseline score of 4 appropriate.

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 ('View') and names the exact resources: Pillar smart wallet balances in STX, sBTC, and aeUSDC plus Zest position. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish this from closely named siblings such as pillar_position or zest_get_position.

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 implies usage by saying it reads on-chain data and needs no signing, and it points to earning_opportunities as a follow-up. However, it does not say when to choose this over pillar_position, get_wallet_info, get_stx_balance, or zest_get_position, nor does it give any exclusion criteria.

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