List Open Positions

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds specific behavioral detail: returns one row per position, multiple rows for same instrument if filled at different prices. No mention of authentication needs, rate limits, or other behaviors, but annotations cover safety profile.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and behavior, second gives clear sibling alternative. No filler, front-loaded with essential info.

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?

Covers core purpose, return format, and differentiator. However, lacks details on pagination parameters (top, skip) and field filtering (fieldGroups), which are common for list tools. Given moderate complexity and no output schema, description is incomplete.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description only hints that clientKey and accountKey are for specifying account, but provides no details on fieldGroups, top, skip. For 5 parameters with no schema descriptions, the description should add more meaning; it falls short.

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 'List' with specific resource 'open positions' and scope 'for authenticated client or specific account'. Distinguishes from sibling saxo_list_net_positions by noting that this tool returns one row per position (multiple rows per instrument if different fill prices), while sibling provides aggregated per-instrument view.

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 mentions alternative tool saxo_list_net_positions for aggregated view, guiding when to use which. However, does not include any other usage scenarios or exclusions.

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