quantower_get_positionsList open trading positions with symbol, account, side, quantity, open price, and net PnL; filter by connection or account to inspect current exposure.
Liste les positions ouvertes (positionId, symbolId, accountId, side, quantity, openPrice, NetPnL). Filtrable par connectionId / accountId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountId | No | Filtre compte. | |
| connectionId | No | Filtre connexion. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile. Since there is no output schema, the description usefully lists the returned fields (positionId, NetPnL, etc.), which adds return-format context, but it says nothing about default behavior when no filter is given or volume/limits.
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?
Two short sentences, with the core purpose and field list front-loaded ahead of the filter note. No filler, though the parenthetical field list makes it slightly dense.
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 list tool with fully documented params and annotations covering safety, most of what an agent needs is present. The gap is unspecified default scope (all connections/accounts when unfiltered) and the absence of pagination or volume guidance.
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 both filter parameters, and the description only mirrors that with "Filtrable par connectionId / accountId". Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ("Liste") and resource ("positions ouvertes") and even enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can distinguish it from get_orders, get_trades, and get_orders_history. It lacks an explicit naming of a sibling alternative, but the resource differs enough from all siblings.
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?
"Filtrable par connectionId / accountId" only indicates that filtering is possible; it does not say when to use this tool rather than get_orders or get_trades, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is at best weakly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.