Retrieve all open positions in the demo account to monitor exposure and support guarded trade decisions.
Open positions in the demo account.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_all_positions"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a non-mutating read, so the description's burden is light. It does add one useful behavioral fact not in the annotations — that the data comes from the demo (sandbox) account, not a live one — but says nothing about ordering, empty-result behavior, or result shape.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, and the scope qualifier is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but nothing in it wastes the reader's time.
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?
For a zero-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what, which account). It stops short of describing the returned fields or whether the list can be paginated, which would help an agent decide whether a follow-up call 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the account scope it already mentions.
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 resource ('open positions') and its scope ('the demo account') are stated clearly enough that an agent knows what data comes back. It is a noun-phrase label rather than a verb+resource statement, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close_all_positions, which operates on the same resource.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_account_info, get_orders, or close_all_positions, nor any stated preconditions. The agent must infer that this is the read-side counterpart to close_all_positions purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.