zest_get_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the query returns collateral, debt, health factor, and LTV data, that totals are USD-denominated, and that Zest Protocol is mainnet-only. It does not cover edge cases like empty positions or failure behavior, but for a read-only position query the key behavioral context is present.

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 purpose and return fields, followed by a relevant mainnet note. The final tip about `earning_opportunities` is useful but slightly tangential; overall the text is efficient without wasted 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain the return shape and operating constraints. It does so adequately by naming the key returned values, USD denomination, and mainnet-only availability. It could be stronger by clarifying response structure or what happens when no position exists, but the essential context is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds some context by saying data is returned "across all assets" and in USD-denominated totals, but it does not clarify how the `asset` parameter scopes the result or reconcile that with the "all assets" phrasing, so it only marginally improves parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 and resource: "Get user's lending position on Zest Protocol (v0-4-market)." It then enumerates the position data returned (collateral, debt, health factor, LTV), making the tool clearly distinguishable from generic wallet or balance tools and from other Zest actions such as supply, borrow, or repay.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description, and the mainnet-only note is useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus related Zest tools or other position tools, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing an existing lending position.

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