get_positions

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

The description adds useful context about what the response contains (intraday/carryforward, quantities, prices, P&L) but does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or data freshness. The 'Get' verb implies read-only behavior, but the openWorldHint annotation does not fully cover safety, and the description does not explicitly state that it is a safe read operation.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every phrase adds value. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple zero-parameter tool, the description adequately lists the response contents (open positions with intraday/carryforward, quantities, prices, and P&L). It does not mention pagination or precise response format, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. According to the scoring guide, a tool with no parameters receives a baseline score of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 'Get' and a specific resource 'open positions', and enumerates the returned details (intraday/carryforward, buy/sell qty, avg prices, unrealised P&L). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_holdings or get_funds.

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 the tool is for retrieving open positions by its name and content, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or how it compares to alternatives like get_holdings or get_all_holdings. There is no 'use this when' guidance, though the content list makes the purpose self-evident.

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