kite-mcp

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

Adds temporal scope ('current day's') and content scope ('both day and net' position types) beyond the annotations. Annotations already establish read-only safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. Does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits.

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?

Single efficient sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with action verb 'Get'. The parenthetical '(both day and net)' efficiently conveys critical domain-specific detail without verbosity.

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?

Appropriate for a simple read operation with zero parameters, existing annotations declaring safety, and an output schema (per context signals) that presumably details the return structure. The description adequately explains what data is retrieved.

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?

Zero parameters exist, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per evaluation rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameters.

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?

Clear verb 'Get' and resource 'positions' with specific scope 'current day's' and content detail '(both day and net)'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'get_holdings', which is important in trading contexts where holdings and positions are distinct concepts.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_holdings' (for long-term portfolio holdings) or 'get_orders' (for order status). No prerequisites or conditions mentioned.

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