Get Closed Positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action in the name and provides no details about pagination, filtering, data latency, or what constitutes a 'closed' position. No behavioral traits are revealed beyond the tool name.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasteful words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently, though at the cost of missing necessary detail. It earns its place as a concise statement.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, so the description must compensate. It fails to explain pagination, market filtering, or the meaning of 'closed positions', making it incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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% and the description only mentions 'for a user', which maps to the required 'user' parameter. The remaining parameters (limit, market, offset) are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without semantics for optional filters and pagination.

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 the specific action ('Get closed positions') and the target ('for a user'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'get_user_positions' by focusing on closed positions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user_positions' or 'get_recent_trades'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended usage scenarios.

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