Get User Positions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, but it only provides a minimal statement of functionality. It doesn't disclose any behavioral aspects such as authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or return format.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no superfluous text. It effectively communicates the core purpose without waste.

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 lacks annotations, an output schema, and has 3 parameters with zero schema descriptions. The one-sentence description is insufficient to fully understand the tool's behavior, especially given related tools like get_closed_positions that suggest a need for clarity on the 'open' scope.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies that 'user' refers to a wallet address, but leaves 'limit' and 'offset' unexplained, which carry meaning for 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 clearly states the action (get) and the resource (open positions) along with the scope (for a wallet address). It differentiates from get_closed_positions by the 'open' qualifier, but does not explicitly mention alternative tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_closed_positions or get_user_activity. The description simply states what it does without any contextual usage instructions.

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