Get User Positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the all-markets-vs-single-market scoping and says nothing extra about authentication requirements, result ordering, or behavior when no positions exist. Adequate but not additive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier arrives before any other information. Slight redundancy in 'across all markets or filtered by specific market', which could be tightened, keeps it from a 5.

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 simple read tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits two things an agent would benefit from knowing: that positions belong to the authenticated user, and that results are paginated via cursor/limit.

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 100%, with limit, cursor and market all documented inline including examples and pagination semantics, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'filtered by specific market' merely restates the market parameter without adding format or edge-case detail.

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 ('Get') and resource ('user's trading positions') plus the scope ('across all markets or filtered by specific market'). An agent can distinguish it from the trading mutation siblings like close_position_order or create_order. It falls short of 5 only because it doesn't name a closely related alternative explicitly.

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 two usage modes — retrieve everything, or narrow to one market — which is reasonable implicit guidance. However it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of the sibling close_position_order for exiting a position, and no statement that this returns the authenticated account's positions (there is no user parameter in the schema).

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