getEarnPosition

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to cover side effects. The description adds a useful domain fact about hourly accumulation and daily distribution at UTC 00:30, which helps interpret position data. It does not disclose auth requirements, scope limitations, or output shape, but given the annotations this is acceptable.

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 short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a relevant timing detail. There is no wasted wording, though the brevity leaves parameter semantics unaddressed.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description carries too little weight. It does not distinguish this earn-position query from related siblings, explain the category enum, or describe what a returned position looks like. The yield timing note is helpful but not enough to make the tool safely selectable and callable.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters coin, category, and productId. It provides no explanation of what values mean, how they filter results, or how they interact. The agent is left entirely to the raw schema.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Query current staked position information.' It is not a tautology and conveys that this is a read-only position lookup. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby sibling tools such as getAdvanceEarnPosition, getTokenPosition, or getFixedTermPosition.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The only added context, about flexible saving yield distribution, is domain information rather than selection guidance. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name and category enum alone.

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