get_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not state any permissions needed, pagination limits, or what the return structure looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool that retrieves data.

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 that states the core function ('get all betting positions') and a key feature ('including win/loss stats') without any filler or fluff. It is front-loaded and perfectly sized.

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 the low complexity (one simple parameter) and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It covers the purpose and the wallet filter, though it does not explain the response format or any edge cases like empty results. This is acceptable for a simple getter.

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 input schema provides a complete description for the single parameter ('wallet' as 'Solana wallet address'), covering 100% of the parameter meaning. The description adds no extra detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'all betting positions for a wallet' and adds 'including win/loss stats', which differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on transactions, leaderboards, or market details. The scope is clear and 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 clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving positions tied to a specific wallet, providing clear context for when to use it. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the wallet-specific language makes the use case evident.

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