Stock Positions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds value by noting that US accounts receive an extra 'us_asset_overview' field, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not elaborate on other aspects like rate limits or authentication, keeping the score at 3.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence and a key detail in the second. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded, earning a top score.

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 tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the main functionality and a special case (US accounts). It does not mention limitations like market-specific availability, but overall it is adequate and 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% and no parameter explanation is needed. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 applies for zero parameters, and the description does not detract from this.

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 it retrieves current stock positions across all channels, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource. While it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'short_positions' implicitly, it does not explicitly differentiate or contrast, preventing a score of 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?

The description implies usage for obtaining stock positions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'short_positions' or 'fund_positions'. There are no when-not or exclusion criteria, resulting in a score of 3.

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