getTokenPosition

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful extra context: the 'Rate Limit: 20 req/s (UID)' constraint and the fact that this queries a specific user's position, implying authentication/authorization scope. This goes beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence adds a key operational constraint (rate limit). There is no fluff, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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 one-parameter, read-only query, the description plus annotations are nearly complete. It includes the user scope, the exact coin value, the rate limit, and the type of returned data ('position and yield summary'). The only notable omission is a more detailed account of response fields, but no output schema exists and the phrase gives a reasonable expectation for an agent invoking the tool.

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 only parameter, coin, is fully constrained by the schema's enum ['BYUSDT'] and the required flag, so the schema already defines valid input. The description repeats 'BYUSDT' and connects it to the token product context, but it does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the enum and required field already communicate. Given the exhaustive enum, the 0% property description coverage is not a practical gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Query user's BYUSDT Token position and yield summary.' This is precise enough to distinguish getTokenPosition from the many sibling position/product/order tools without needing the tool name alone. It clearly identifies the user scope, the product type, and the data returned.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever a user's BYUSDT Token position and yield summary is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer getTokenOrderList, getEarnPosition, or another sibling. The usage context is inferable but not directly stated.

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