yield_dashboard_positions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important traits: read-only, mainnet-only, requires an unlocked wallet, and lists three known data limitations (valueSats=0, apyPct=null, microSTX denomination). It could be improved with error-case behavior, but it's substantially transparent.

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 purpose, then structure: returns, preconditions, limitations, and a tip. Every section is informative and there is no redundant filler.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a useful field list, preconditions, and limitations. It stops short of relating the tool to siblings like yield_dashboard_overview, but overall it gives enough context for an agent to call it correctly.

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 no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns detailed per-protocol DeFi positions across four named protocols. It distinguishes itself from a generic overview by emphasizing 'Detailed per-protocol', though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to avoid.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like yield_dashboard_overview or zest_get_position. The 'Tip' points to earning_opportunities for a different purpose, but does not clarify when to select this specific tool.

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