nt_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is sufficient at a basic level, but the description does not disclose behavior when the position is not found (e.g., returns null or errors) or any other constraints. It adds minimal depth beyond the operation itself.

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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the action and key qualifiers. No wasted words.

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 2-parameter getter, the description is adequate. It lacks an explicit return value description, but since there is no output schema, a note on what is returned would strengthen completeness. Missing usage exclusions are the main gap, but overall the description covers the core context.

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%, providing descriptions for both accountId and instrument. The description only restates 'by account and instrument' without adding further meaning or parameter-specific details, so it does not exceed the baseline for fully covered 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 clearly states it gets a specific position, with the qualifiers 'by account and instrument' distinguishing it from sibling tool nt_positions which presumably lists all positions. The verb 'Get' is specific and the resource is unambiguous.

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 single position is needed by account and instrument, but it does not explicitly contrast with nt_positions (for all positions) or mention any exclusions. It conveys context but lacks clear when-to-use vs alternatives guidance.

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