Open perp positions for an address (snapshot)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot: the data is a snapshot that 'refreshes every few minutes' (staleness), it returns totalNotional/totalPositions aggregates, and results are sorted by notional desc. That staleness caveat is the key operational trait for this tool.

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?

One dense sentence carries the scope, field list, freshness, sort and totals, followed by a short routing sentence — front-loaded with the tool's identity and no filler. The parenthetical field list is long but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating the returned position fields and aggregate totals, plus refresh cadence and sort order. Filter-parameter semantics are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable at 100% coverage, but a brief note on pagination/limit interplay would round it out.

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 side, limit, fields, market, offset and address are all self-documented in the schema. The description adds no filter syntax or semantics beyond the schema (the 'incl. HIP-3' note describes return scope, not parameters), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('open perp positions' for an address) and immediately scopes it as a homepage snapshot lookup across all markets incl. HIP-3. The parenthetical enumeration of returned fields makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like flowscan_address_summary and flowscan_address_orders.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'For live margin/account state use flowscan_address_summary,' which is a concrete alternative with a selecting condition. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely-named sibling flowscan_perp_positions (market-wide rather than address-scoped), leaving one plausible confusion unresolved.

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