earn_get_positions

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists returned fields and notes active positions, but lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or whether the list is exhaustive. [PRIVATE] hints at auth but not explicit.

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?

Three sentences plus a note and [PRIVATE] tag. Information is well-organized and front-loaded. Could be slightly more compact by omitting redundant parameter description from schema, but overall efficient.

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 no output schema, the description lists all returned fields adequately. Distinguishes from related tools and explains the nature of positions. Lacks return format details but sufficient for an agent to understand output.

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% with both parameters documented in schema. Description adds no new information beyond stating optional filter and jwt. Baseline 3 applies as schema already provides meaning.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists active Earn positions/strategies, specifies optional filter, and lists returned fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like earn_get_assets (APY) and notes difference from Pockets, making 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?

Explicitly advises using earn_get_assets for APY rates, and clarifies that positions are locked/yielding funds different from Pockets (liquid funds). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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