getPositionInfo

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

The description reveals that the tool is a query (read-only) returning real-time position data with specific fields. It mentions supported contract types but does not cover pagination behavior or rate limits. However, since no annotations exist, the description adequately conveys the tool's non-destructive nature.

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 three sentences: purpose, contract support, and parameter hints. It is front-loaded with the core action, no superfluous words, and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description covers the main functionality and parameter selection but lacks details on pagination (limit, cursor) and response structure beyond a few fields. It is mostly complete for typical usage.

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 has 0% description coverage; the description compensates by explaining how to use category, symbol, settleCoin, and baseCoin for different contract types. It omits explanation for limit and cursor (pagination) but overall adds significant meaning beyond the 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 'Query real-time position data such as PnL, leverage, liquidation price, and margin info' and specifies contract types (linear, inverse, option). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on current open positions, unlike order or account info tools.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this endpoint to check current open positions' and explains parameter selection per contract type (linear/inverse vs options). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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