get_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It does disclose the content of the returned position, which is useful given there is no output schema. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, describe potential failure modes, or clarify units and formatting of the returned values.

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, dense sentence with no filler. The primary object ('a borrower's position in one market') is front-loaded, followed by a concise list of the returned fields. Every word contributes useful information.

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 two-parameter read with fully documented parameters, the description adequately states the return content and the per-market scope. The absence of an output schema and minor ambiguity around units or liquidation-price denomination leave small gaps, but the tool is still selectable and invocable based on this description.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema: 'Market key' and 'Borrower address', with address format further constrained by a regex. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the overall borrower-position context. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema coverage is 100%.

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 resource as a borrower's position in one market and enumerates the returned data: collateral, debt, health factor, and liquidation price. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves,' but the tool name supplies that action. The per-borrower, per-market scope helps distinguish it from list_vaults and get_market.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_vaults, get_market, or quote_borrow. The phrase 'in one market' hints at scope but does not explicitly direct the agent to alternatives or exclusions. No prerequisites or typical use cases are mentioned.

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