Weekend trading: positioning changes since Friday close

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description usefully adds the data scope (long/short counts and notional at two timestamps, new/closed positions, optional top-5 address changes), but says nothing about auth needs, latency, or pagination.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the panel scope and enumerates what it returns. It is information-rich and mostly earns its place, though it reads as a run-on that could be split for readability.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the fields returned per market, including the optional top address changes. Missing only default/pagination behavior, which the schema already covers.

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 all 7 parameters with types and defaults. The description only hints at includeTopAddressChanges ('optionally the top 5 address-level position changes per market'), which is marginal added meaning over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb/resource: a 'positioning panel' showing long/short counts and notional per perp market between Friday close and the latest snapshot. The scope (~330 markets, crypto and HIP-3 TradFi) is concrete. It does not explicitly name the sibling weekend tools it differs from, 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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as flowscan_weekend_prices or flowscan_weekend_coin_changes. The agent must infer from the name alone that this tool is for positioning rather than price/coin changes.

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