Retrieve current positions for a wallet address to review prediction-market holdings and exposure.
Current positions for a wallet address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| address | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.18.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "get_positionsOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint are all set, and the description simply restates the core function without explaining details like pagination, limit behavior, or what 'current' means. It does not contradict annotations but contributes no extra transparency.
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, concise sentence that is easy to parse and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, but that is more a completeness issue than a structure issue. The structure itself is efficient.
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 large number of sibling tools that deal with positions, the lack of any disambiguation or mention of the venue (e.g., Kalshi, paper, etc.) makes this definition incomplete. There is no output schema, so the description should clarify return format or limit semantics, but it does not. An agent may call the wrong tool without further context.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'wallet address' which clarifies the address parameter, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all. The agent is left guessing what limit controls, such as max number of positions returned. This is a significant gap given the 0% 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 states that the tool returns current positions for a wallet address, which is a clear resource and scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like my_positions, kalshi_positions, or paper_positions, all of which may also return positions. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, preferred use cases, or why one would choose this over my_positions or kalshi_positions. The single sentence gives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.