get_account_positions

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

Despite having no annotations, the description is highly transparent about the tool's read-only nature and its inability to place orders. It also discloses a critical limitation regarding paper vs. live account confirmation, which goes beyond what annotations would typically cover.

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 two efficient sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and no redundant wording. 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 no-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, safety profile, and a caveat. The output schema presumably documents the return structure, so the description does not need to duplicate that.

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?

There are zero parameters in the schema, so the description has no parameter-specific information to add. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and nothing in the description undermines that.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource ('Get current positions in the connected moomoo account'). While it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, the scope is unambiguous and the read-only caveat adds clarity.

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 provides clear context: it is for reading positions and explicitly cautions that it cannot place/modify/cancel orders. It also directs the user to cross-check with check_health when paper vs. live status matters, which is an explicit alternative.

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