getFixedTermPosition

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a concrete operational constraint, 'Rate limit: 10 req/s (UID)', and scopes results to 'current' position information, which is useful context beyond 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 extremely concise and front-loaded: one clear purpose statement followed by one relevant operational limit. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition of schema or annotation information.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameter documentation, so the description is the only source for result shape and filtering semantics, and it provides neither. For a tool with three optional parameters and many near-sibling tools, more context is needed before an agent can use it confidently, though openWorldHint mitigates some uncertainty.

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 carries the burden of explaining the three optional parameters. It does not explain what coin, category, or productId mean, how they filter results, or how to obtain valid values. The property names and enum are the only real guidance available.

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 verb 'Query' with the resource 'current fixed term position information', which is specific and clearly scoped to a read-style position lookup. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like getFixedTermOrder or getFixedTermProduct, so differentiation is left mostly to the tool name rather than the description.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of getFixedTermProduct, getFixedTermOrder, getEarnPosition, or other position-query siblings. There are no prerequisites, no mention of how to resolve productId, and no exclusion cases. An agent would have to infer usage entirely from the schema and tool name.

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