Get DeFi positions for an address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' Beyond that, it details what data is returned for each protocol (e.g., collateral, debt, health factor), which gives the agent concrete expectations about the operation's behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides concise protocol-specific details, all in an efficient and structured manner.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return values for both protocols, including the CDP out-ref that close_cdp needs. It covers everything an agent needs to know to invoke the tool and interpret its result.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (address and protocol) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 reads open positions for a Cardano address, and then enumerates the exact types (Indigo CDPs and Liqwid loans) with their key fields. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_balance by focusing on positions, making its purpose 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to read positions from specific protocols), and the protocol parameter selects the type. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set and the explicit protocol choice make the intended usage evident.

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