pillar_position

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose a real side effect that structured fields don't cover: it opens the Position page in the browser AND returns the data. However, it says nothing about whether a wallet must be connected, unlocked, or which active wallet is used, and it never explicitly says the call is read-only or free of state changes.

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?

Purpose and returned fields come first, followed by one short tip, with no filler. The tip is slightly peripheral, but it is one sentence and reads as a clear forward reference.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully lists the return fields, which is the right compensation. But for a wallet-reading tool it omits prerequisites (wallet connection, unlock state, network) and doesn't clarify how the browser-opening behavior interacts with headless or agent use.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed, and the field list it gives is about output, not arguments.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('View your Pillar wallet balance and Zest position') and enumerates the returned fields (sBTC balance, collateral, borrowed, LTV, liquidation price). But it doesn't distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as `pillar_direct_position` and `zest_get_position`, which appear to read the same data.

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 only routing hint is 'call `earning_opportunities` to see how to put your assets to work', which is a next-step suggestion, not guidance on when to use this tool. It never says when to prefer it over `zest_get_position`, `pillar_direct_position`, or `get_wallet_info`, even though those siblings exist.

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