get_moolah_user_position

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, confirming safe read. The description adds the behavioral insight that a risk ratio close to 1.0 indicates near liquidation, which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other traits like default parameter behavior or response structure.

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 a single sentence followed by a short actionable note. It is front-loaded with the purpose, no redundant words, and every sentence adds value.

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 read-only tool with 3 parameters fully documented in the schema and clear annotations, the description completes the context by listing output fields and risk interpretation. It could mention default values for address and network, but those are present in the schema, so overall it is nearly complete.

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 fully documents the three parameters (address, network, marketId). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'user's position in a specific Moolah market', and lists the fields (collateral, borrow amount, lltv, risk ratio). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_moolah_market' by focusing on a single user's position and risk status.

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 explains when to use the tool: to check a position's risk ratio and consider repaying or adding collateral if near liquidation. It implicitly tells when not to use (e.g., for market-wide data), but lacks explicit exclusion or alternative tool references.

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