持仓查询

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorldHints, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds the default-omitted-symbol behavior, which is useful. It does not disclose whether '当前持仓' includes all accounts/markets, or how results are ordered/pagined.

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 two very short, front-loaded clauses with no filler. Every item conveys necessary behavior.

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?

Tool is simple and annotations cover side effects, so the scenario is low-complexity. But there is no output schema and no explanation of what fields each position entry includes (e.g. quantity, price, P/L), leaving the result shape somewhat ambiguous for the agent.

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 schema has no description on the sole symbol parameter, so the description's '缺省 symbol 返回全部' meaningfully supplies the key semantics: an omitted symbol returns all positions. For a single optional string param, that is the essential distinguishing guidance.

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?

Description states a clear verb ('返回') and resource ('当前持仓列表'), which immediately identifies it as a position-listing tool. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like trading_balance or trading_position_mode, so it stops short of a 5.

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 such as order history or balance queries. The '缺省 symbol 返回全部持仓' note is a parameter behavior, not a usage scenario or exclusion.

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