get_ibkr_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what data is fetched but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or how data is returned (e.g., real-time vs. cached). The mention of 'optionally account-level PnL' hints at behavior but is insufficient for a mutation-free tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Fetch current IBKR positions') and adds optional functionality without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for description details, but gaps remain in behavioral transparency and parameter guidance, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.

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 description adds minimal semantics: it implies 'include_pnl' controls PnL inclusion but doesn't explain its effect or default. It doesn't mention 'account_id' at all. With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, the description partially compensates for one parameter but leaves the other undocumented, meeting the baseline for moderate schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Fetch') and resources ('current IBKR positions', 'account-level PnL'). It distinguishes the optional PnL feature but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ibkr_account', which might also provide account-related data.

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 mentions the optional inclusion of PnL, implying usage when PnL data is needed, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., 'get_ibkr_account' for account details or 'get_ibkr_snapshot' for broader data). No exclusions or alternatives are specified.

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