get_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination support, which is useful, but fails to cover critical aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with financial data access, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 with two sentences that directly convey the core functionality and a key feature (pagination). Every word serves a purpose, and it's front-loaded with the main action, making it efficient and easy to parse without any wasted text.

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?

Given the complexity of financial data tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error handling, security implications, and how it differs from siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively in a real-world scenario.

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 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (client_id, limit, from). The description adds no additional semantic information about these parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as usage examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current positions'), making the tool's purpose evident. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_holdings' by focusing specifically on positions rather than holdings or other financial data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools like 'get_orders' or 'get_trades', which slightly limits its specificity.

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 mentions 'Supports pagination for large datasets,' which implies usage in data-heavy contexts but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_holdings' or 'get_orders' are given, leaving the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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