getRwaPositionList

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by framing the operation as a query. It adds useful behavioral context by listing the returned data categories and explicitly stating the rate limit of 10 req/s per UID, which goes beyond the annotation-only signal.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The field enumeration is informative without being verbose, and the rate limit is presented as a separate clearly tagged note. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 zero-parameter read-only query, the description provides sufficient context: it states whose data is queried, what fields are included, and the applicable rate limit. No output schema exists, but the explicit field list gives an agent a reasonable expectation of the return content.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately focuses on what the query returns rather than inventing parameter guidance, matching the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 identifies the operation: querying the user's RWA holding positions, and it lists concrete returned fields such as effective shares, in-flight stake/redeem amounts, and current NAV. It is distinguishable from siblings like getRwaOrderList and getRwaProductList by using 'holding positions', though it does not explicitly name any sibling to disambiguate.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getRwaOrderList or getRwaProductList. It gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selecting this tool over related RWA endpoints; the rate limit is operational information, not usage guidance.

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