subscribePosition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds the UTA position scope and real-time nature. However, it does not disclose how the subscription behaves—whether it waits for messages, how long it runs, or how delivery terminates.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value by specifying the action, the data type, and the account scope.

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 subscription tool with no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits parameter behavior, subscription lifecycle, return semantics, and any selection guidance among the many subscribe* siblings, leaving an agent to guess how to invoke and interpret 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters. While the parameter names and enum/default values provide some self-evident meaning, the description adds no clarification about how category, timeoutMs, or messageCount affect the subscription.

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 ('Subscribe'), a resource ('position updates'), and a context ('Unified Trading Account (UTA)'). It is clear and distinguishes the tool from most subscribe-* siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many other subscribe* siblings such as subscribeWallet, subscribeExecution, or subscribeOrder. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references.

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