polymarket_get_user_positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that results are sorted descending by default and provides the range for limit, but does not detail behavior for invalid wallets, rate limits, or response structure beyond what the output schema may provide.

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: a one-line summary followed by a structured Args block. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The important information (purpose and parameter details) is front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity (read-only, single wallet), the description covers the key aspects. However, it could briefly note that only current holdings are retrieved (not historical) or that the wallet must exist, but overall is sufficiently complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates: 'wallet' is explained as an EVM address with example format, 'limit' includes range (1-100) and default (20), and 'sort_by' lists all enum values with default and notes descending order. This is excellent documentation.

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 it retrieves 'Public current holdings for a wallet address (0x...)', specifying the resource (holdings) and the scope (by wallet). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_user_activity' or 'get_user_value', which serve different purposes.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of exclusions or context that would help an agent decide between related tools such as 'get_user_activity' or 'get_user_value'.

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