obol_defi_positions

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait — the $0.10 USDC cost — which informs an agent's decision tree on whether to call the tool. However, it does not confirm read-only/non-mutating behavior, describe the return format, or note failure/rate-limit considerations. The cost disclosure lifts it to a 3, but with zero annotation coverage it leaves behavioral context on the table.

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 with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence with concrete details, and the cost disclaimer stands alone in the second. Every word earns its place; this is a model of efficient, well-structured description.

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 low-complexity tool (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the core calling contract well: what it returns (positions by type and protocol) and the cost. The main gap is the lack of sibling differentiation in a crowded family of 12 tools, and no return-format hints given the absence of an output schema, but the tool's simplicity keeps it reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — the single parameter `address` is already documented in the schema as 'Solana wallet address'. The description adds nothing about parameter format, network context, or validation beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline 3 applies; no compensation is needed nor extra value provided.

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 uses a clear verb+resource construction ('Get DeFi positions for a wallet') and adds specificity with asset types (LSTs, LP tokens, lending) and categorization by protocol. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-twin sibling obol_wallet_portfolio or obol_wallet_overview, relying on content specificity rather than naming which tool it is not.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 12 siblings including overlap candidates like obol_wallet_portfolio, obol_wallet_overview, and obol_wallet_activity, the agent gets no routing signal about which wallet query maps to which tool. Nothing in the description states when-not-to-use or points to a better alternative.

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