get_positions

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

The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the default behavior for account_number (stored default or first account on session). This adds useful behavioral context beyond a simple read operation, though it omits details like data freshness or rate limits.

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 concise (two lines), front-loads the core action, and includes parameter details in a structured Args block. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given a single optional parameter and existing output schema, the description covers core functionality, return values (quantities and P&L), and parameter behavior. Minor omissions (e.g., edge cases like no positions) prevent a perfect score.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting the account_number parameter's semantics, including defaulting logic and the meaning of null. This provides essential information for correct invocation.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'open positions', and the scope 'for an account', making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_account_info and get_working_orders by targeting positions 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_option_chain or get_working_orders). The description only states what it does, without providing context for selection or exclusions.

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