summarize_positions

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavior of fetching live positions when the parameter is omitted. However, it does not mention side effects, performance implications, or error conditions, which would be helpful for a read-oriented tool.

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 concise with two sentences that front-load the core purpose. It is efficient and without redundancy, though a brief mention of the output format could improve structure without adding much length.

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 the lack of output schema, the description should hint at the return format. It mentions grouping by total, symbol, and side but does not specify the type of summary (e.g., list of objects). The parameter behavior is well-explained, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 description adds meaning by explaining that omitting 'positions' fetches live data, which the schema's default of null implies but does not clarify. However, it does not describe the expected structure of the positions array (schema has additionalProperties: true), leaving the parameter semantics incomplete.

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 clearly states the tool summarizes open positions by total, symbol, and side, distinguishing it from siblings like get_positions which provides raw lists. However, it does not define what 'total' means (e.g., count or value), leaving some ambiguity.

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 when a summary is needed and notes that live positions are fetched if omitted. It does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides implicit guidance.

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