get_positions

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

Description adds specific fields beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and explicitly states 'Read-only', consistent with annotations. No contradictions. Lacks details on data freshness or error conditions, but adequate for simple 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?

Single sentence of 17 words, front-loaded with key purpose. No unnecessary words.

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 no parameters and no output schema, description sufficiently covers what the tool returns. Annotations provide behavioral safety. No output schema needed.

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?

Input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 3; description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate.

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?

Description explicitly states it returns current open positions with specific fields (symbol, qty, avg entry price, current price, unrealized P&L). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_account (account info) and guarded_close_position (closing positions).

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?

Description does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes usage clear: use this to retrieve positions. No explicit when-not or alternative mention.

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