my_positions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful context about the configured wallet and that no address parameter is needed, but it does not disclose what 'current' includes or how the limit behaves. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the core purpose and adds a useful parenthetical clarification. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description conveys source, scope, and wallet dependency. However, it leaves 'current' somewhat ambiguous (open vs. settled positions) and does not explain the limit parameter, so a slightly fuller description would improve completeness.

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 schema has one optional 'limit' parameter with a default of 50 but no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not mention 'limit' or explain its effect, so it adds no parameter semantics and fails to compensate for the missing schema description.

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 names the resource ('current Polymarket positions') and the ownership scope ('operator's', 'configured wallet'). 'No address needed' sharpens the boundary and helps distinguish it from venue-specific or address-based position tools in the sibling list.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the agent needs the configured wallet's current Polymarket positions. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the wallet/venue framing makes the usage context obvious.

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