Get positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about freshness/real-time behavior, whether cash or non-stock assets are included, or whether the list can be empty — meaningful gaps for a portfolio read.

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 that leads with what is returned and then lists the fields. No filler, no repetition of the title, nothing that could be cut.

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 zero-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description's field enumeration largely carries the return-value burden. The remaining gap is the boundary with get_funds and get_orders, which an agent must guess at when assembling a portfolio view.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies the call is account-scoped with no filtering knobs, which matches the empty schema.

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 the specific resource (stocks held in the account) and enumerates the returned fields (quantity, average price, current price, profit or loss), which is far more informative than the name alone. It implicitly distinguishes from get_funds (cash) and get_orders (order history), but never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for checking current holdings, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_funds or get_orders when position data is not what's needed. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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