Open positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds a small behavioral detail by defining direction and averagePrice, which clarifies the returned data. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or whether only currently open positions are returned, but for a simple read-only list tool this is acceptable.

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 short sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence adds useful field definitions without bloat. It is concise and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It lacks explicit return-value details, but the field definitions hint at the output shape. The absence of pagination or filtering details is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents accountId. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Open positions on an account.' It also clarifies the meaning of two fields (direction, averagePrice), which helps distinguish this from related tools like list_open_orders or close_position. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as get_account_snapshot, which may also include position data.

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 implies usage by naming the account context and the required accountId parameter, and the schema notes the accountId comes from list_accounts. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, but the tool's purpose is straightforward enough that an agent can infer when to call it.

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