Positions with risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It goes beyond them by explaining what is computed and returned (risk flag derived from thresholds, funding per day, distance to liquidation), which is real added context. It still omits auth nuances for the account lookup modes and any rate-limit or caching behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first front-loads the return payload and the second front-loads the user intents. Every clause carries distinct 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?

With no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by naming the key returned fields and the flag semantics, which is what an agent needs to decide the tool fits. Remaining gaps are scope questions: whether positions span all accounts or only the identified one, and whether results are paginated or filtered by symbol.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by explaining that the ok/watch/danger flag is the output of watch_pct and danger_pct, connecting the threshold parameters to the return value. It says nothing about how symbol, account_id, sub_account_id, and wallet_address interact or which takes precedence.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('open positions') with an explicit enumeration of the enriched fields returned: mark price, notional, PnL as % of margin, liquidation distance, risk flag, and daily funding. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling strike_get_portfolio and strike_get_account because it describes position-level risk computation rather than balances or holdings.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrasings ('how are my positions', 'am I close to liquidation', 'what is funding costing me') that map cleanly to invocation scenarios. It does not, however, explicitly exclude or route to overlapping siblings such as strike_get_portfolio or strike_get_account when the user asks broadly about their account.

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