paper_positions

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description discloses important simulation behavior: resting paper orders fill if crossed, dry-run orders are papered against the live book automatically, and there is no queue, impact, or fees, making results an upper bound. This meaningfully adds context the annotations do not 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?

Three dense sentences cover the portfolio contents, the auto-papering mechanics, and the simulation caveats. Every sentence adds value, and the core purpose 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?

For a no-parameter, read-only snapshot tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the portfolio contains, how orders are treated, and the key simulation limitations. An agent can invoke this tool correctly without further clarification.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies; nothing additional is needed.

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 defines this as a paper-trading portfolio for dry-run and enumerates its contents: cash, positions at current marks, realized/unrealized P&L, and resting paper orders. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from live-position siblings like my_positions, get_positions, and kalshi_positions.

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 explicitly scopes the tool to dry-run paper trading, which is clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this instead of live position tools,' so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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