getPredictionPositionHistory

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: closed positions arise from manual sell, market resolution, or expiry, and the result contains realized P&L plus a WIN/LOSE/MANUAL_CLOSE status and amount won/lost. It does not discuss pagination behavior, but annotations already reduce the need for safety disclosure.

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 main purpose is front-loaded, and the sibling routing is useful. However, the 'AI agent can use' sentence and the 'Agent hint' sentence largely repeat the same closed-history/realized-P&L information, so not every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a no-required-parameter read-only list tool, the description does convey the essential purpose and return content. Yet with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, key call details around pagination and output shape are left ambiguous. It is workable but not fully complete.

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 limit, direction, or pageIndex at all. Even as commonly guessed pagination parameters, their meaning, defaults, and interaction are undocumented. Because the description was the only place to compensate and did not, this dimension fails.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it queries the authenticated user's closed prediction positions, and explicitly contrasts with getPredictionPositionList for open positions. It also communicates what is returned (realized P&L, final outcome, WIN/LOSE/MANUAL_CLOSE, amount). This makes the tool's role unmistakable among a large sibling list.

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?

Provides clear usage context: summarize the user's closed prediction trading performance. It also gives an explicit alternative with a condition: 'For current open positions, use getPredictionPositionList instead.' This is exactly the kind of routing guidance an agent needs.

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