getPredictionPositionList

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns only unresolved positions, each position contains tokenId and availableSize, and these fields matter for sell orders. It does not contradict 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 front-loaded and mostly helpful, but it repeats the open/unresolved position restriction twice and gives near-duplicate agent guidance in the second paragraph and the agent hint. It could be tightened without losing 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately lists key return fields: shares held, market value, unrealized P&L, event information, tokenId, and availableSize. It also ties the tool into the sell workflow. The main gap is undocumented pagination parameters, but they are optional and the core usage guidance is sufficient.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters: limit, direction, or pageIndex. These are pagination controls, and the agent receives no guidance on how to use them. The tokenId and availableSize references are response fields, not parameter semantics.

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 verb and resource: 'Query the authenticated user's current open prediction positions.' It further clarifies the scope by stating 'Returns positions that have not yet been resolved,' which clearly distinguishes it from historical position 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 gives explicit usage guidance: call this before placing a sell order to confirm sufficient shares and display the current portfolio. It also names the alternative, getPredictionPositionHistory, and states when to use it instead, leaving no ambiguity.

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