getPositionInfo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: real-time data, supported account types, conditional required parameters, and the one-way-mode empty-position interpretation.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, then uses compact bullet lists for account coverage, category rules, and an interpretation note. Every sentence adds operational value with no repetition or filler.

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?

The description covers the main things an agent needs to call this tool correctly: category selection, conditional required parameters, option behavior, and position-mode semantics. It omits explicit output structure and pagination behavior, but there is no output schema and the limit/cursor fields are self-explanatory.

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 parameters. It compensates well by documenting conditional requirements: linear/inverse need symbol or settleCoin, option baseCoin is optional, and omitting baseCoin returns all option positions. It does not explain limit, cursor, or settleCoin value formats, but it covers the critical call-shaping rules.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Query real-time position data, such as position size, cumulative realizedPNL.' It also clarifies account-type coverage. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling getPositionSymbolInfo, but the stated outputs and real-time framing make the tool's purpose clear.

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 gives useful context about when the tool applies, including unified vs classic accounts and category-specific parameter requirements. However, it never names alternatives or explains when not to use this tool, so an agent must infer routing from the surrounding sibling list.

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