get_crypto_positions

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuine value: it discloses that leverage, margin mode and mark prices are returned as null when unknown and points the agent at per-venue source_status and coverage fields for data quality. That is exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs before interpreting results.

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 compact sentences with the subject front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is a slightly telegraphic fragment ('Kept out of portfolio NAV and holdings'), but it carries real routing information rather than padding.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills the remaining gaps — venue scope, exclusion from portfolio aggregates, and null-handling for missing fields — leaving little an agent needs that isn't covered.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 0%, but the enum (all/binance/hyperliquid) is self-documenting. The description names both venues, which maps onto the enum values, yet it never mentions the parameter itself, the 'all' default, or what 'all' returns.

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?

Names a specific resource — open crypto futures positions plus native account balances — and scopes it to two named venues (Binance USD-M, Hyperliquid). The sentence 'Kept out of portfolio NAV and holdings' actively separates it from siblings like snapshot_portfolio_nav and get_holdings, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 exclusion note ('Kept out of portfolio NAV and holdings') implies that portfolio-level questions belong to sibling tools, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states explicitly when to call this tool versus get_crypto_account_history or get_trading_pnl, and names no alternative by name.

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