getPredictionPositionHistory

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

With no annotations, the description adds some behavioral info like returning realized P&L and final outcomes (WIN/LOSE/MANUAL_CLOSE). However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or authentication needs, which are important for a query tool with pagination parameters.

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 has redundancy, repeating the result format in multiple sentences. While not overly long, it could be more concise by merging the agent hints and result description.

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 no output schema and pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It mentions result content but omits pagination behavior, direction meaning, and any error conditions. The distinction from getPredictionPositionList is helpful, but more details are needed for full context.

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%, and the description does not explain the three parameters (limit, direction, pageIndex) at all. The agent must infer their meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 the tool queries the authenticated user's historical prediction positions that have been closed, specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool getPredictionPositionList, which handles open positions.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use getPredictionPositionList for open positions, and provides context for summarizing trading performance. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions but offers clear guidance on alternative usage.

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