get_positions

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Get ... positions' plus the returned-field list makes the read-only nature reasonably clear, and the exchange-scoping caveat adds real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, whether an empty result is returned when no positions exist, or rate/latency behavior for a live trading-data call.

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, no filler, and the core verb-resource statement is front-loaded ahead of the exchange-specific caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the enumeration of returned fields compensates well, and the exchange-specific limitation prevents a common misuse. Given a one-parameter read tool this is close to complete, though a note on the empty-result case and on sibling differentiation would close the remaining gap.

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% and the single 'exchange' parameter is fully documented with an accepted-values list, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the Hyperliquid-specific qualification about which position types are covered, which is a modest addition over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get all open positions on an exchange') and enumerates the returned fields (size, entry price, PnL, leverage), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the closely-named siblings get_outcome_positions or pacifica_print_positions, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 Hyperliquid caveat ('native perps only; HIP-3 dexes via the CLI --dex') is a useful scoping constraint. But there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_outcome_positions, pacifica_print_positions, or get_balance, leaving the sibling choice implied rather than stated.

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