stacks_market_get_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it establishes this is a read/check operation, explains the wallet-fallback auth behavior, and warns that Stacks Market exists only on mainnet. It does not describe failure behavior for an unknown market_id or stale markets.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the address-fallback rule, then the network constraint — a sensible priority order with no filler. The closing 'earning_opportunities' tip is promotional rather than functional and is the one sentence that does not directly serve invocation.

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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the description tells the agent what comes back (YES and NO share balances) and under what auth conditions, which is sufficient to call it correctly. Missing only edge-case behavior (unknown/inactive market) that a caller might want.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the address fallback text which the description repeats. The description adds no new semantics such as market_id format expectations or address validation beyond what the schema states.

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 precise verb + resource: 'Check YES and NO share balances for an address' scoped to a Stacks Market prediction market. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling reads such as stacks_market_get (market metadata) or stacks_market_list, since the description names the exact artifact returned.

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?

Explicitly covers the two calling modes: pass an address, or omit it to use the configured wallet, and notes no wallet is required when an address is supplied. It also flags the mainnet-only constraint. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling for related queries beyond a generic tip toward earning_opportunities.

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