Get User Value

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns total value, without explaining whether it includes current vs. historical positions, how valuation is computed, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs aggregation.

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 clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action 'Get' and immediately specifies the resource. However, it is somewhat terse, but the conciseness itself is appropriate; the issue is missing content, not verbosity.

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?

This tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must carry more weight. It only covers the basic purpose, leaving out parameter semantics, return format, and behavioral context. For an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly, more detail is needed.

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 does not explain the meaning of the 'user' or 'market' parameters. 'market' is an array of strings and is entirely unexplained, while 'user' is only implied. The description adds no value beyond the bare schema, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 'Get total value of a user's positions' uses a specific verb 'get' and identifies the resource as 'total value of a user's positions'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_user_positions, which likely return position lists rather than an aggregate value. However, it doesn't clarify what 'value' means (e.g., current market value, cost basis) or whether it includes open and closed 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_user_positions, get_closed_positions, or get_user_activity. The description implies a use case for retrieving aggregate value, but it does not state any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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